Sitting of 15 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (NO. 2) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered ; to be read the Third time.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
As amended, considered.
BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Clause 24

    FINE FOR OBSTRUCTING WORKS
    Amendment made : In page 16, line 11, at end insert :
    (iii) subject to the provisions of any bye-laws for the time being in force (including byelaws for the purpose of ensuring that Cumberland Basin Lock and Junction Lock Bridges are opened at times convenient to road traffic) and to the following provisions of this subsection the Corporation shall when and so far as is practicable permit noncommercial vessels of an overall height not exceeding 70 feet reckoned from water level and of a draught not exceeding 12 feet to enter into so much of the Floating Harbour as lies between Junction Lock and the speci-
    690
    fied line and shall also when and so far as is practicable (but without prejudice to section 28 (Relief from obligation to open Redcliff Bridge) of this Act) permit noncommercial vessels of an overall height not exceeding 11 feet reckoned from water level and of a draught not exceeding 6 feet 6 inches to enter into so much of the Floating Harbour as lies to the east of the specified line.
    (iv) where under paragraph (iii) of this proviso non-commercial vessels of dimensions exceeding the prescribed dimensions are permitted to enter into any portion of the Floating Harbour such vessels shall enter into such portion and shall navigate and moor at such times, in such positions and in accordance with such reasonable terms and conditions as may be prescribed from time to time by the Corporation and the Corporation shall be under no obligation, whether statutory or otherwise, regarding the safety of such vessels, or of persons therein or thereon, or to carry out any works for the purpose of accommodation of such vessels.
    (2) For the purposes of paragraphs (iii) and (iv) of the proviso to subsection (2) of this section—
    'the specified line' means the line of the western side of the bridge to be constructed across the Floating Harbour in the vicinity of Jacobs Wells when the position of that bridge has been determined and until such time means the line of the Mardyke Ferry.
    'non-commercial vessel' means any vessel employed in the service of Her Majesty, any vessel used for the purposes of nautical training and any yacht or launch (other than a yacht or launch used for the carriage, accommodation or entertainment of persons for hire or reward).—[Mr. Palmer.]
    Bill to be read the Third time.

    LERWICK HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Bills read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Royal Naval Dockyards
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the latest position with regard to employment, average earnings and overtime working in Royal Naval Dockyards.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): The employment position remains as forecast in the Defence White Paper of 1969, The average earnings of adult males during a typical week in June was £30·03 per week including 2·1 hours of overtime.
    Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great anxiety in the dockyards at reports that more work is being put out to private contract when job opportunities are falling in the yards? Is he further aware that, because of the deplorably low level of earnings for many of these working men in the yards, there is no hope of their taking home anything near a living wage unless there are reasonable prospects for overtime, which are being cut back every day?
    Mr. Kirk: We have put one submarine out to contract. Nothing else is planned to go out to contract at the moment. In relation to the absence of overtime. there is a problem about the balance of trades and I am discussing this with the trade unions. I hope that we shall be able to resolve it satisfactorily.
    Mr. John Morris: Why was this submarine put out to contract? Was there consultation with the unions in the dockyards before it was done? Is not one of the problems of putting refits out to contract the difficulty in advance of estimating the work to be done and the pricing?
    Mr. Kirk: I had full consultation with the trade unions before the submarine was put out to contract, and I kept them informed. There was no way in which we could accommodate this vessel in the Royal Dockyards. The problem was
    692
    once more that of the balance of trades, which has been one of the great difficulties of the yards. I am not wholly satisfied with the way things are, but I am doing the best I can to rectify the situation.

    Royal Air Force, Orfordness
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Minister of State for Defence how many persons are employed at Royal Air Force, Orfordness ; and what percentage there are of each nationality.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): The figure is 386. Of these, 32·5 per cent. are United States nationals, and the remainder are of United Kingdom nationality.
    Mr. Stoddart: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his answer may well cause resentment in that, to accommodate foreign nationals, military or security personnel, local inhabitants have been told to keep away, local fishermen have been warned not to go within three miles of the establishment lest they get electric shocks, and overflying of the establishment is prohibited? Would he like to comment on this matter?
    Mr. Lambton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Minister of State for Defence why special facilities were granted on an exclusive basis to the Daily Telegraph, to photograph Royal Air Force Station, Orfordness, after the issue of the D-notice ; and if he will grant similar facilities to all other national newspapers.
    Mr. Lambton: No special facilities were granted to the Daily Telegraph, nor is there a D-notice applying specifically to Royal Air Force, Orfordness. The photographs in question, which were taken entirely on the initiative of the Daily Telegraph, were submitted to my Department for security clearance in the normal way. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if, there is vagueness about an area covered by a D-notice, there is a tendency for that area to spread beyond the area absolutely necessary for national security? Will he be ready to define, not, of course, what is covered by

    693
    this D-notice, but what is not covered by it, so that the rest of the national Press will be as well informed as the Daily Telegraph?
    Mr. Lambton: I think the Press have been quite openly dealt with on this matter. There is no specific D-notice applying to Orfordness. The station is covered by the terms of the general D-notice relating to photography at all military establishments. The Daily Telegraph observed the provisions of this D-notice.

    N.A.T.O. European Defence Improvement Programme
    Mr. Roderickasked the Minister of State for Defence what new form of military arrangement in Western Europe he envisages requiring higher expenditure by West European countries under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The European Defence Improvement Programme does not involve any new form of military arrangement.
    Mr. Roderick: When does the Minister propose to announce to the House the plans outlined in his speech in Munich on 20th February regarding the European Defence Improvement Programme?
    Lord Balniel: They have already been announced on 17th December, 1970, and in further detail on 17th February, 1971.
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence what is his estimate of the approximate amount of expenditure that will be incurred by the British Government over the next five years as their share of the European Defence Improvement Programme of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Russell Kerrasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he expects the increased combined military expenditure of West European nations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme to be met by other such West European nations, increasing their percentage gross
    694
    national product military costs to the level of those in the United Kingdom or whether he expects all such West European countries to expend a greater percentage of their gross national product upon military projects.
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of State for Defence by how much the United Kingdom military budget will increase on the basis that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme is implemented.
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Minister of State for Defence by how much he estimates expenditure by Great Britain will increase in the next five years under the European Defence Improvement Programme.
    Mr. Lathamasked the Minister of State for Defence to what extent he estimates the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme wil linvolve extra expenditure by Great Britain over the next five years.
    Lord Balniel: The 1971–72 Estimates together with the published Defence Budget targets for the following three years make appropriate provision for Her Majesty's Government's contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme. This has been valued at some £76·5 million over the first five years of the programme. It is not for me to say how our allies are financing their contributions, although I must emphasise that this programme represents an increase in the military capability of the alliance.
    Mr. Allaun: Did not the noble Lord say in Munich that this programme would cost N.A.T.O. an extra one billion dollars over the next five years alone, and also that Europe would have to take an ever-increasing share of the burden? Is increasing expenditure to this extent a sensible way to secure East-West troop force reductions, if one wants them, as, presumably, the Government do?
    Lord Balniel: I announced that the total European Defence Improvement Programme amounted to £175 million over the next five years. I am talking of pounds at the moment. This has been agreed by all the European members. I think that, till such time as one can

    695
    achieve a balanced reduction of forces in Europe, it would be very unwise for Western Europe to lower its defences.
    Mr. Kerr: Is the noble Lord aware that this country is spending about 50 per cent. more of its gross national product on so-called defence? Does he not agree that it is time that this "umbrella, spats and no-breakfast" approach to defence matters came to an end?
    Lord Balniel: We are spending around 5½ per cent. of our gross national product on defence, and this is money which is preserving the freedom of the Western world, and I think it is money very well spent.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Minister tell the House to what extent Great Britain is involved in the increased contribution to the N.A.T.O. infrastructure programme as a result of our participation in this defence improvement programme?
    Lord Balniel: Yes. The total United Kingdom contribution amounts to £76½ million, which is just under 19½ per cent. of the total planned expenditure.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would my hon. Friend not agree that it is vital that we should spend this money in Western Europe and, indeed, increase our percentage of expenditure on the security of Western Europe, and would he not agree that there still remains a fair amount of work to be done and money to be spent in bringing our defences in Western Europe up to the standard we require to resist any possible aggression from behind the Iron Curtain?
    Lord Balniel: Yes. This money will be largely spent on the hardening of airfields and the protection of aircraft, as is already undertaken on the other side, in the Warsaw Pact. The remainder of the expenditure will be to improve the communications system which is very necessary for Western defence.
    Mr. Kerr: Twenty years out of date.
    Mr. Stoddart: Could the Minister say what criterion is used for the sharing of this burden between the European group of the N.A.T.O. Powers?
    Lord Balniel: It is the criterion of N.A.T.O. defence expenditure burden
    696
    sharing which has been in force, I think, since the inception of N.A.T.O. itself.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the programme of hardening airfields in particular is essential, because N.A.T.O. is a defensive alliance and must, therefore, face the first strike, so that it is particularly important that we should have aircraft secure on hardened airfields?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend has pointed to the main tactical and strategic reasons which have led the Government and other European members of N.A.T.O. to this decision.
    Mr. Latham: Would the Minister confirm that in his Munich speech he made reference to a figure of one billion American dollars, and that he further said that this referred only to two defence projects, and that he subsequently described such expenditure as a small start in the process of burden sharing? Would he indicate what share is likely to be the burden on the British taxpayer of that one billion United States dollars, indicate to the House whether he was talking in terms of an American billion or a British billion, and give the sterling equivalent?
    Lord Balniel: As I have already done the House the courtesy of laying my speech in the Library of the House, I am sure that the House will be able to see whether the statement which the hon. Member has read is correct, but it remains my view that as Europe achieves greater strength it is incumbent on Europe to play a greater part in her share of defence and not leave the overwhelming proportion of her defence on the shoulders of our American allies.
    Mr. George Thomson: While strongly endorsing what my hon. Friends have said about the importance of pressing on with balanced force reductions and about the importance of a fair share of the expenditure between one European ally and another, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that one of the advantages of the European defence improvement programme is that, by protecting our aircraft, it raises the nuclear threshold, and, therefore, in the event of an emergency, gives a much better chance of a peaceful resolution of that

    697
    emergency without recourse to nuclear weapons?
    Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very valid point. Going hand in hand with the proposals for the increased defence posture of the Western world is our desire to achieve balanced force reductions with the Warsaw Pact, and these two things are together very prominent in the policies which have been followed by N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Will the noble Lord agree that the Soviet Union is continuing to spend an increased amount of money on military expenditure each year, and that, even with this small amount of added expenditure, the Soviet Union will have a preponderance still in all types of weapons, and would not my hon. Friend's efforts be better directed to persuading the Soviet Union to cut down its expenditure?
    Mr. Kerr: Get a European security conference.
    Lord Balniel: I agree that expenditure in the Warsaw Pact on military equipment is increasing, and that this is a factor which we have to take into account. On the other hand, the Soviet leaders' response in relation to the initiative for balanced force reductions has been the first positive response which has been made, and I think that we would be right to follow it up vigorously with exploratory talks.
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to his policy towards expenditure on armaments by the Western European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) on 17th December, 1970 and 17th February respectively.—[Vol. 808, c. 406–7; Vol. 811, c. 504–5.]
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for his extremely helpful reply, but will he tell us what are his views on the future prospects of armaments within an enlarged E.E.C.?
    Lord Balniel: I believe that, if one can achieve a greater economic strength in Europe as the result of entry into the E.E.C., that will contribute to the influence which Europe can wield in the world and, therefore, to the strength of its defence arrangements.
    Mr. Adley: Will my noble Friend say whether there has been a noticeable change in the view of the French towards N.A.T.O. in the last few weeks or months?
    Lord Balniel: Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Moyle: As the White Paper on British membership of the E.E.C. speaks of increased security if Britain joins the E.E.C., will the noble Lord tell the House what extra commitments in men, money and materials we intend to make to the defence of Western Europe on our accession to the Community, if we accede?
    Lord Balniel: My answer to some extent echoes the words of the White Paper. I believe that greater political unity and greater economic unity will lead to a greater defence strength, and this is one of the factors which leads one to believe that the advantage lies with entry into the E.E.C.

    Computer Systems
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Minister of State for Defence what computer systems are in use or planned in his Department for pay, personnel, maintenance supplies and general administration ; and whether he will make a statement.
    Lord Balniel: I refer the hon. Member to Annex A to the Ministry of Defence Supplementary Memorandum of Evidence to the Select Committee on Science and Technology (sub-Committee A), and the Minutes of Evidence for Wednesday, 31st March, 1971. Current plans provide for the replacement of older computers and the enhancement of their systems where appropriate.
    Mr. Huckfield: While I am grateful to the noble Lord for the elucidation of that matter, may I ask whether he has seen a report that the American Department of Defence has been using its computerised systems for the collection and maintenance of personal and political

    699
    files on large numbers of individuals, and would the Minister give a categorical assurance to the House that nothing of this sort is happening in this country?
    Lord Balniel: I take note of the point made by the hon. Member. The rules of confidentiality observed by the Ministry of Defence are designed to ensure that no unauthorised person has access to personal information stored in our computer files.

    Gunnery Range, Shoeburyness
    Mr. Buchananasked the Minister of State for Defence what is the latest estimate of cost of the proposed transfer of the Shoeburyness gunnery range to South-West Scotland.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): We estimate that the cost of reproviding, at West Freugh, the facilities which it is hoped to move to that area from Shoeburyness will be not less than £20 million. Until plans are further advanced it is not possible to estimate what additional cost would be involved in reproviding elsewhere some defence facilities at present at West Freugh.
    Mr. Buchanan: From the Minister's answer it is obvious that this cost does not include in the transfer of the R.A.F. unit the demolition of buildings. Is he aware that the transfer will ruin an area of great natural beauty and before taking a final decision will he make a cost-benefit analysis of the transfer?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not think the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it will ruin an area of great natural beauty, because there are already range facilities there. We have gone into this very thoroughly and, as the hon. Gentleman will know, a number of local organisations are in favour of this move.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the R.A.F., while having no home as does a county regiment, is very much at home in Wigtownshire and has been for many years? In the last 10 years I have never had a single complaint about the R.A.F. bombing at West Freugh, and if the R.A.F. could provide 100 more jobs, we would put up with many more bangs not to have the guns.
    Mr. Gilmour: I am sure my hon. Friend is right in what he says about
    700
    friendship with the R.A.F. but, as he knows, other considerations arise here.
    Mr. George Thomson: Is the Minister aware that, having served in the R.A.F. at West Freugh, I endorse all that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said? Is he further aware that local opinion about this proposal is deeply and evenly divided, and should not there be a full public inquiry?
    Mr. Gilmour: This is a matter which arises directly under Question No. 15.

    Nuclear Weapons (Servicing of Vessels)
    Mr. Lathamasked the Minister of State for Defence what facilities are available in Great Britain to other European powers for the servicing of vessels carrying nuclear weapons.
    Lord Balniel: No request for servicing facilities for such vessels has ever been received from another European power.
    Mr. Latham: The Question does not ask whether any application has been received ; it asks what facilities are available. Does the Minister realise that what gives rise to this Question is the possible implication of any defence arrangements that may be secretly made in connection with E.E.C., the existence of a French nuclear weapon-carrying submarine and the fact that the American submarine Poseidon is being serviced at Holy Loch without any announcement being made to the House of Commons? There is, therefore, an understandable fear that similar facilities might be granted to a European Power without the House of Commons being informed.
    Lord Balniel: There is nothing to add to the Prime Minister's statement in answer to Questions on 24th May, when he made it clear that there were no discussions of any kind on Anglo-French nuclear arrangements during talks with the only other nuclear Power in Europe.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend agree that, should a request come from any European nuclear Power, we should accede to it with the greatest alacrity?
    Lord Balniel: This is a hypothetical question. Any such request would, of course, be considered on its merits

    Ministry Building (Planning Approvals)
    Mr. Stratton Millsasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will introduce legislation whereby all Ministry of Defence buildings have to be approved by the planning department of the appropriate local authority.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): No, Sir.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will my hon. Friend see whether the procedure might be improved? Is he aware that the submission by courtesy to the local authority of the Army's plans is no satisfactory alternative? Is there any practical or strategic reason why plans should not be submitted by the Army as they are by any private individual or commercial body?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: The arrangements under which we operate under the Circular 100 procedure have caused general satisfaction over the years. If my hon. Friend is dissatisfied with this arrangement, I suggest that he gets in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.

    Northern Ireland (Border Surveillance)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the military surveillance on the border between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Johnson Smith: Both the land border and the coastline of Northern Ireland are patrolled by the security forces to prevent the smuggling of arms and ammunition and any other illegal traffic which would jeopardise the security of the Province, but studies of methods of improving control of the border are in hand.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend recall the case of the seriously wounded I.R.A. gunman who was carried across the border only to die in the South? Does not this case and the many other cases which are brought to notice reveal that there is not a very extensive search of persons and vehicles, and is there any improvement in this regard?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: As I have said, we are studying ways of improving the methods of surveillance of the border, but my hon. Friend will, I am sure, bear in mind that this is a very difficult task. There are over 300 miles of border and a great many roads, and we cannot seal off the border without a tremendous amount of effort at enormous cost.
    Captain Orr: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is becoming an intolerable scandal that the Irish Republic, reputedly a friendly Power, is allowing its territory to be used constantly for training and refuge by people who are shooting our soldiers in the back? Will my hon. Friend say what arrangements there are between the security forces on either side to see that this is brought to an end?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: I know that my hon. and gallant Friend takes a close interest in these matters, which I respect, but I am sure he will understand that it would not be in the interests of security to disclose specific measures under consideration or already in force. Of course, we naturally welcome co-operation with the Republic.
    Mr. Walden: I thank the Minister for what he said but, in view of the nature of the questions being asked and the Minister's replies, what we should like to know is when this situation is going to end. The Army is doing a marvellous job, but its resources are strained by being there and it makes it difficult in Rhine Army. It begins to look as if the Army are there as a permanent garrison and that there will never be any political settlement. Can the Minister give us any guidance whether the Army is getting on top of the situation and whether any political arrangement will be made that can bring the Army out?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: This is a very wide question which goes beyond my brief, as the hon. Gentleman knows. I have not a crystal ball, and I would mistrust looking at one anyway, but I am confident that the Army is capable of discharging its duties with a professionalism which is second to none. I do not find people's confidence being at all diminished in the ability of the Army to discharge those duties ; on the contrary, I think there is enhanced confidence.

    Experimental Gun Firing (West Freugh)
    Mr. Hannanasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the experimental gun firing undertaken recently in the West Freugh area of Scotland and what were the local reactions thereto.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: Demonstration firings took place on 24th and 25th June at the request of the Wigtownshire County Council. There was some unfavourable local comment.
    Mr. Hannan: To use a colloquialism, the Minister can say that again. In view of the acute differences in the county council and the overwhelming opposition in the local community in respect of the noise nuisance, and also bearing in mind the negligible value of this project—a project which apparently is unwanted elsewhere in the United Kingdom—for employment purposes in Scotland, will the Minister give an assurence that he will not take a decision until a public inquiry is held?
    Mr. Gilmour: In reply to the last part of the question, it will be for my right hon. Friend, in the light of the representations which have been made, to decide whether there should be a public inquiry. On the earlier part of the question, it is not true to say that local opposition is overwhelming. Wigtownshire trade unionists are in favour of the move because there will be more than 600 permanent jobs for civilians available at the range ; other bodies have indicated support for the proposal, including the South-West Scotland Tourist Association, the Stranraer and District Chamber of Trade and the Stranraer Town Council ; and the Wigtownshire County Council has also accepted the proposal.
    Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that the organisations which he has mentioned are mostly out of the sound of the guns and that I have a large file of letters which I shall be sending him shortly? I only wish that I could send him all the telephone calls I have received on this matter.
    Mr. Gilmour: I shall be interested to receive all the information my hon. Friend has at his disposal.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, if this is the best the Government can do to solve the unemployment situation in Scotland, the people of Scotland will want no part in it? Will he now hold a public inquiry to prove conclusively what we are saying?
    Mr. Gilmour: As was made clear in an earlier debate, this is not the principal measure we have for dealing with unemployment in Scotland. I do not think the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) is immediately concerned in this area, and therefore I do not feel that he speaks for the workers in it.
    Mr. John Morris: Was not the answer given by the Minister to the question about the need for a public inquiry absolutely pathetic? If there are local anxieties and fears, is it not incumbent on the Government at the earliest possible moment to announce a public inquiry? Will the hon. Gentleman recall that when there were similar difficulties in South Wales the Labour Government announced a public inquiry at the earliest possible moment?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman listened to my earlier reply, when I said that it would be for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to decide on this point.
    Mr. William Hamilton: That is what worries us.

    Beira Patrol
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has of the number of oil tankers which in the last three months have been prevented from delivering oil by the ships and aircraft of the Beira Patrol.
    Mr. Kirk: No oil for Rhodesia has passed through Beira. All the tankers which would otherwise have been delivering such oil have obviously been deterred from doing so.
    Mr. King: Would my hon. Friend accept that, misconceived as is the whole sanctions policy, there might be some conceivable logic in it if everyone were to join in? Within a week in which Zambia has announced that she is

    705
    increasing her trade with Rhodesia, could my hon. Friend tell the House why Britain alone should bear the costs of this phantom patrol, which stops nothing? Does he realise that this has been going on for six long years and is it not time he assured the House that, whether or not agreement is reached with Rhodesia, this particular waste of money will cease?
    Mr. Kirk: As I have told my hon. Friend more than once, the question whether the patrol goes on is not a matter for me but for my right hon. Friend. Secondly, as I have told the House more than once, this is an obligation laid upon us by the Security Council of the United Nations.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that every national and international law-breaker will be delighted with the philosophy of the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) that if we cannot catch them all we should never make any attempt to catch any?
    Mr. Kirk: I would only say that we have prevented oil going through the port of Beira, which was the obligation laid on the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of State for Defence what has been the total cost to the country of maintaining the Beira patrol since 9th April, 1966 ; how many tankers have been intercepted ; how many have been diverted from Beira, and how many have continued on their way to that port ; in how many cases has an attempt been made to use force, and in how many cases has it been successful ; and what has been the effect of this patrol on the supply of oil and petrol to Rhodesia.
    Mr. Kirk: The extra cost is about £2¼ million. About 50 tankers have been stopped since April, 1966 and after inquiries all have been allowed to proceed. I cannot say how often force has been attempted, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that the patrol has been successful in that no oil for Rhodesia has passed through Beira. This illegal régime has been denied the cheapest and most direct method of importing oil.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the fact that petrol in Rhodesia is now not only unrationed but cheaper than in London, and in view of the fact that
    706
    Foreign Office Ministers now accept that this particular method of carrying out the Security Council Resolution is not a requirement on this country, cannot my hon. Friend find better methods of utilising taxpayers' money and the matchless loyalty and discipline of the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Kirk: I do not accept that any of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made statements in that regard—
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On 21st June.
    Mr. Kirk: I have studied the statement on 21st June. All that the Royal Navy is required to do is to prevent tankers from going into the Port of Beira, and that it has done.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it obnoxious that the most loyal supporters of the Crown are seeking to support and encourage an illegal régime in rebellion against the Crown?
    Mr. Kirk: I never make comparisons, odious or otherwise.

    Harrier Aircraft (Ship Trials)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of State for Defence what estimate he has now made of Harrier trials on the "Ark Royal".
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the recent trials of Harrier aircraft of the Royal Air Force embarked upon H.M.S. "Ark Royal" ; and what new assessment he has made as a result of the capability of the Royal Air Force to conduct air operations in support of the Fleet.
    Mr. Kirk: I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 122–3.]
    Mr. Dalyell: What Harrier programme is now envisaged?
    Mr. Kirk: We are evaluating the results of the "Ark Royal" trials, and in the light of those we shall take our decision on any maritime use of the Harrier.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Do not recent events in the Mediterranean and the marked political instability in that area show

    707
    the need for integral air cover for the Fleet? If that is the case, is it not about time that my hon. Friends got on with the task of providing such cover because, without it, many experts on this side of the House agree, as do naval friends, that the Fleet will be virtually defenceless in face of hostile air attack?
    Mr. Kirk: Experts on both sides of the House disagree on this sort of matter. I am sure my hon. Friend would not wish us to embark on a major spending programme until we have evaluated the results of the trials.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the military considerations, it is desirable to increase as quickly as possible our exports of this remarkable aircraft, and can he say when the Ministry will begin to reach a conclusion after some 10 years of trials?
    Mr. Kirk: We are all in favour of increasing exports of military potential.

    Multi-Rôle Combat Aircraft
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of the multi-rôle combat aircraft programme.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: In accordance with arrangements agreed last year, we are now, with our partners, engaged in a review of progress of the development programme.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend ensure that external political pressures are not brought to bear on this project which is of such vital military, industrial and technical significance for British and European defences ; and will he assure the House that the purchase by the Luftwaffe of 200 F4 Phantoms in no way changes its intention to buy a significant number of M.R.CAs.?
    Mr. Gilmour: I do not quite know what my hon. Friend means by "external political pressures", but this programme is extremely important. There is no reason to believe that the German Air Force has changed its mind about this programme.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is not the estimated unit cost of the M.R.C.A. now above £3 million?
    Mr. Gilmour: Any costs which have been estimated apply only to the early development phase, so that information is not available.

    Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited
    Mr. Douglasasked the Minister of State for Defence how much of the £4·5 million loan to Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Limited has been taken up.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: The figure is £3·7 million.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister concede that the mere granting of this loan has had a salutary effect in saving this portion of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders? Will he not prevail on his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to be as generous, if not more so, in saving the whole of the consortium?
    Mr. Gilmour: The loan to Yarrow was extremely valuable, and it is my understanding that over the years a great deal more money has been lent or given to U.C.S. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not a matter for me.
    Mr. John Morris: I also welcome the fact that money has been injected into Yarrows, which is a first-class shipbuilding yard. However, is it not a rather odd arrangement that the Ministry of Defence is injecting the money rather than the Treasury? In view of the fact that the Government, like Ceasar's wife, must be above suspicion, how will the hon. Gentleman satisfy other shipbuilders in other parts of the country that they will have a fair crack of the whip?
    Mr. Gilmour: I am sure that other shipbuilders in other parts of the country have complete confidence in our fairness.

    Malta
    Mr. Dixonasked the Minister of State for Defence what was the total amount of defence expenditure and overseas aid in Malta in 1970 ; what estimate has been supplied to him of the money spent by personnel of Her Majesty's forces in Malta in 1970 ; and what he estimates to be the total expenditure under these three headings in 1971 on the assumption that the Government of Malta does not

    709
    abrogate its defence agreement with the United Kingdom.
    Lord Balniel: As the Answer contains a number of figures I will, with permission, arrange for it to be printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Dixon: Will my right hon. Friend agree that most hon. Members deplore the gross discourtesy displayed by Mr. Mintoff in unilaterally cancelling the visit to Malta last night of my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence? Now that Mr. Mintoff has abrogated unilaterally our defence agreement with him, and since Malta is now virtually of no military value at all, should not we immediately cancel all overseas aid to that country?
    Lord Balniel: As my hon. Friend raises the wider issue of the 1964 Agreement on financial assistance, and as a statement is to be made later today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, I ask my hon. Friend to await that statement.
    Following is the information :

    Financial years

    1970–71£m

    1970–72£m

    Local defence expenditure other than personal spending*

    1·2

    1·9

    Personal spending†

    12·7

    10·6

    Overseas aid under the 1964 Agreement on Financial Assistance‡

    11·2

    5·0

    * Defined as in Annex B, Table 6, of Cmnd. 4592.

    † Including cost of locally engaged personnel, and net of receipts from N.A.A.F.I., etc.

    ‡ Seventy-five per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan in each year. The figures exclude £27,000 technical assistance in each year. The Agreement on Financial Assistance was published as Cmnd. 3111.

    Officers (Recruitment)
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Minister of State for Defence what is the present shortfall of Regular officers in each of the three Services.
    Lord Balniel: The shortfalls of male trained officers at 1st April 1971 were as follows :

    Royal Navy and Royal Marines

    349

    Army

    90

    Royal Air Force

    149

    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Are not the figures that my right hon. Friend has
    710
    just given a significant indication of a very serious situation, especially in the Royal Navy? Can my right hon. Friend say what plans his Department has for dealing with the situation?
    Lord Balniel: The size of the Navy shortfall reflects the low level of recruitment resulting from the policies pursued by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in office. I am glad to tell my hon. and gallant Friend that, during the first six months of 1971, applications for the Royal Navy were 50 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period last year.
    Mr. Ashton: Is not that due to unemployment among young white-collar workers and school leavers who see no employment opportunities other than joining the Forces?
    Lord Balniel: I think that the main reason is that, throughout the country, it is now realised that in joining the Services of the Crown, there is a future for people under the present Government. The improved recruiting is not confined to the Royal Navy. Applications for entry into the Army increased by 31 per cent. in the first six months of this year, and the number of applications for the Air Force rose by 72 per cent.
    Sir H. Harrison: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that increased numbers of young men electing to take commissions in the Services reflect their confidence in this Government?
    Lord Balniel: They have confidence in this Government. They also have confidence that they have before them a career which is immensely worth while and one which is held in the highest respect throughout the community.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the traditional alternatives offered to the Scottish people by his Administration and their predecessors have been the Labour Exchange and the recruiting office? Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is because of high unemployment that he is getting his recruits?
    Lord Balniel: In view of the shortfall two years ago, which was almost of drastic seriousness to the country, I think that there will be overwhelming support

    711
    for and pleasure in the fact that recruitment to the Services is now increasing.
    Major-General Jack d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: Reverting to the original Question, does my right hon. Friend agree that the present increase in the numbers of young men taking short service commissions in the Army is extremely satisfactory?
    Lord Balniel: My hon. and gallant Friend echoes the views that I have been expressing myself.
    Mr. George Thomson: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the welcome improvement in recruiting figures is due directly to the military salary introduced by the previous Administration and that, in so far as recruiting has improved, it must be because this Government have now adopted the defence budget and the defence policies of their predecessors?
    Lord Balniel: Why complain, if that is the case? Certainly I concede that the introduction of a military salary has been of value in encouraging people to join the Services.
    Mr. Speaker: Questions to the Prime Minister. Mr. William Hamilton.
    Mr. William Hamilton—
    Mr. McMaster: On a point of order. I do not think that the clock yet says a quarter-past three.
    Mr. Speaker: It is for me to judge the time.

  MALTA
  Ql. Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now seek to pay an official visit to Malta.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have no plans to do so. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be making a statement after Questions about recent exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Malta.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does not the Prime Minister think that the defence facilities on Malta are of sufficient importance both to this country and to N.A.T.O. to warrant either the right hon. Gentleman himself going to Malta or his inviting the new Maltese Prime Minister to this coun-
  712
  try for the purpose of discussing these matters?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman awaits the statement which is to be made later by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, he will learn that, as has been generally published in the Press, my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was about to go to Malta. I have myself invited the Prime Minister of Malta to come here.

  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if the public speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at a luncheon of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce in London on 23rd June on the economy represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Duffy: Does not the Prime Minister agree that, unlike then, the Chancellor of the Exchequer now has substantial grounds for introducing a modest package of reflationary measures, and that all the up-to-date information in his possession confirms the picture of stagnation in current expenditure and investment? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree, therefore, that there is an overwhelming need for a stimulus to the national economy within a matter of weeks and not months?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House that he is reviewing the forecast and that he will give the House his views in due course. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await them.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: As, on that occasion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made no statement about how and when the Government intended to cut the rise in prices "at a stroke", can the Prime Minister tell us when it will happen? It is now more than 12 months since the right hon. Gentleman made that statement or caused it to be issued from the Tory Central Office.
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been present in the House and

  713
  listened to the debates, he would have known that the action of the Government, including halving S.E.T. and limiting nationalised industries' prices, has carried out that policy.

  PRIME MINISTER (ABSENCE FROM LONDON)
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister what provisions he has made for the exercise of his responsibilities during his absence at sea during the last week in July and the first week in August, 1971.
  The Prime Minister: The usual provisions, Sir. But if the hon. Gentleman is expecting me to be out of London throughout the period, he will find himself, as usual, much mistaken.
  Mr. Skinner: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, if he is unable to lead the British team in the Admiral's Cup, a Mr. Sampson will be in charge? While many of us will wish him success, some of us must be sceptical about the prospects of any Sampson performance that is played solo. Does the Prime Minister realise that, while he has been playing at this rich man's sport for the past 12 months, millions of ordinary working-class people have been having their sails trimmed by this reactionary Government?
  The Prime Minister: I have been asked to captain the Admiral's Cup team and I intend to do so. My only comment is that the hon. Gentleman appears to have a rather strange way of wishing one success.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Can my right hon. Friend throw some light on what is bugging the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the Prime Minister's nautical activities? Is it the fact that my right hon. Friend sails or the fact that he wins?
  The Prime Minister: I will not claim to fathom the workings of the hon. Gentleman's mind, if that is what he possesses. The hon. Gentleman claims to be a sportsman both in tennis and in cricket. It might be to the benefit of the House as well as of himself if he devoted more attention to those games.

  N.A.T.O. EUROPEAN DEFENCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMME
  Mr. Boothasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community, he will discuss with the Heads of Government of the European Economic Community countries the development of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme.
  The Prime Minister: I would of course undertake any consultations which might be necessary with other leaders within an enlarged Community ; but the European Defence Improvement Programme was the result of agreement last December between the European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and is not a matter for the Community.
  Mr. Booth: In that case will the Prime Minister assure the House that if any Minister makes any future statement abroad regarding a development in the European Defence Improvement Programme during the period of his Administration, that statement will be reported to the House? Will he further assure the House that Members will have an opportunity to question such a statement, irrespective of whether the Minister making it is a Member of this House?
  The Prime Minister: The full details of our contribution to the European Defence Improvement Programme were given to the House. It is natural for Ministers making speeches elsewhere to comment on this matter in a defence context. I see nothing unusual or wrong in that. The House has been informed about the agreement which was reached. Indeed, it was mentioned in the defence debates.

  TEACHERS (CAREER STRUCTURES)
  Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieuasked the Prime Minister which Department has a responsibility for considering career structures in the teaching profession.
  The Prime Minister: Departmental responsibility for career structures, in so far as they are an aspect of teachers' pay, rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

  715
  Her Department is associated with the local education authorities, who employ the teachers, on the three statutory negotiating bodies.
  The arrangements are broadly similar in Scotland, where departmental responsibility rests with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
  Mr. Mallalieu: Is the Prime Minister aware, however, that delegations of teachers wishing to discuss this matter have been told by the Department of Education and Science that it is the responsibility of the Department of Employment and that, when they have gone to the Department of Employment, they have been told that it is the responsibility of the Department of Education and Science? Will he make absolutely certain that his Ministers know what their responsibilities are?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I will gladly look into that. The answer which I have given I believe to be correct. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the issues of career structure which have recently arisen in the context of arbitration on teachers' pay are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. If he has any particular case which he would like me to look into on this matter, I will gladly do so.
  Mr. Ashton: Is it not obvious that as there have been 300 Amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill in the House of Lords, there is still a great deal of confusion about who is responsible for industrial relations in this matter? Will the Prime Minister tell us how the Industrial Relations Bill will affect this aspect of negotiations on teachers' pay? Should he not hurry along there before Report stage is finished to make Amendments to get it straight?
  The Prime Minister: This is a question about career structure in the teaching profession. It is not concerned with the Industrial Relations Bill.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (LETTERS TO THE PRIME MINISTER)
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister how many letters he has received on
  716
  the Government's handling of economic affairs.
  The Prime Minister: Detailed figures are not available, although a large number deal with economic issues. Many of my correspondents recognise that the Government are determined to overcome inflation and the other economic problems which we inherited, and congratulate us on the progress which we have so far made.
  Mr. Carter: May I ask the Prime Minister what replies he sends to those letters addressed to him on the sad, pathetic subject of unemployment among school leavers? Does he offer them the only solution which he has offered to me on this subject, a rather pathetic suggestion that if they cannot find jobs they should stay on at school?
  The Prime Minister: I replied at great length and in great detail to the letter which the hon. Gentleman sent to me. I understand that he published it without reference, but he is entitled to do that. I do not propose to quote the letter of appreciation and thanks which he sent back to me for my reply. What I pointed out to him, because it was a matter raised in his letter, was that larger numbers of children were staying at school for further education. This has been going on for many years and is a development to be welcomed.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked a number of times about various aspects of the unemployment which he was going to reduce, particularly about white-collar unemployment, which he said that he regarded seriously but about which he has said nothing in the House since. We all welcome any cases of children staying longer at school. But will he tell us what the prospects are for school leavers getting jobs this year compared with previous years? Will he not rely—and from what he said I hope that he will not want to rely—on children who want jobs, but cannot find them, going back to school? Will he tell us what the prospects are and give his mind to this important and serious problem?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I am not saying that children should stay at school because they cannot get jobs. I am saying that in recent years there has been

  717
  a steady increase in the number of children staying longer at school. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides would welcome that, because of the additional education which they get.
  As to the prospects for those who wish to leave school and to secure jobs, I believe that many of the fears and statements have been exaggerated, judging from what was happening at Easter when the great majority of school leavers were able to get jobs within a comparatively short time. Naturally we cannot forecast exactly what will happen to those leaving school this month, but I believe that many of the fears are exaggerated.
  Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply today and previous replies show a totally complacent attitude about this question? If he came to areas like Liverpool and the North-East Coast he would find youths who left school on the last school-leaving occasion and who have never yet had employment. The youngsters leaving school now face the prospect of there being no openings for them at all.
  Reverting to the point about sailing, is the Prime Minister aware that people in this country believe that while he is sailing around the coast he is not concerned with rising unemployment, rising prices and attacks on the social services, and that he does not care about their problems?
  The Prime Minister: I do not propose to comment on the hon. Member's cheap, petty-minded jibes. I am quite capable of doing my job as Prime Minister and at the same time taking the necessary recreation, like any other sensible person in this country. I intend to go on doing so, whatever jibes the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may make.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: When the right hon. Gentleman has got over his little fit of petulance, will he address himself to the serious question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)? He will no doubt have seen some of the statements published about juvenile school leavers and employment prospects in some areas of this country. He will have seen, because it was published nationally, the position of Kirby on Merseyside where, each year, a committee representing the four comprehensive schools which
  718
  account for the whole of the secondary education there puts out its estimate of the number of school leavers who will get jobs, apart from those who want to stay on at school, about which we all agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Having studied the figures, will he tell us whether he is so complacent as he sounds about the number of jobs available for school leavers this year?
  The Prime Minister: I am in no way complacent about it. Nor is any member of the Government. When it comes to a question of cheap, petty jibes, one expects the right hon. Gentleman to join in.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I have made no remarks about the right hon. Gentleman's hobbies. I will choose my own time to describe them. [Interruption.] If the House wants a part-time Prime Minister, it can have him. I asked the right hon. Gentleman about juvenile employment. He replied in his usual petulant manner when replying to my hon. Friend. Will he now answer the question about juvenile employment?
  The Prime Minister: I have told the right hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency whatever in this Administration about that question.
  Hon. Members: Answer.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is time that we got back on to the fairway.

  MINISTERS (OVERSEAS SPEECHES)
  Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether he will make it a practice of his Administration that Ministers making speeches abroad always make it clear whether or not they are speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Prime Minister what is the practice of his Administration in regard to Governmental responsibility for statements made by Ministers overseas.
  The Prime Minister: Speeches made by members of this Administration, whether at home or abroad, naturally reflect the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that a speech was made by the Minister of State for Defence at Munich in February of this year, and that the Ministry of Defence is now claiming that the Minister of State attended that conference in a purely private capacity, with the result that hon. Members have been denied the opportunity to put direct questions on that policy statement? That is bad enough, but will the right hon. Gentleman realise that other participating countries probably do not understand the technicalities of the British parliamentary system, and will he therefore write to the heads of Governments and say that the Minister of State was not speaking on behalf of the Government, and was therefore not expressing Government policy?
  The Prime Minister: I understand that a copy of the Minister of State's speech has been put in the Library and is available for hon. Members to see. It was not, therefore, a private occasion, and I know of nothing in it that is contrary to Government policy.
  Mr. Jenkins: The Prime Minister said that the noble Earl who sits in this House was speaking on behalf of the Government on the occasion of his speech in Munich. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are unable to put down Questions on this subject to the noble Earl because he is not the senior Minister in the matter? I am talking about Lord Balniel. I am sorry that in my anxiety to see him in his proper place I provoked him. As we cannot question the noble Lord in this House, will the Prime Minister reorganise his Government's arrangements so that when the senior Minister in this House speaks on behalf of the Government, the Opposition can question that Minister, and are allowed to put down Questions to him?
  The Prime Minister: If I may say so, that is a confused complex of questions. I understood that I was dealing with the speech made by my noble Friend the Minister of State when he was in Munich. My noble Friend is a Member of this House. If these Questions are put to him, whether they are accepted is a matter for Mr. Speaker and the Table Office, and not for me. I am being asked questions about it today. My noble Friend's speech is in the Library for all hon. Members who wish to read it to do so.
  Mr. Onslow: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much to the convenience of the House and of the country if the Leader of the Opposition could make it clear, when Members of the Shadow Cabinet make speeches, particularly on the subject of the Common Market, whether they are speaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: That is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition to make clear, which no doubt he will do on Saturday.
  Mr. George Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that an important point of principle and procedure is raised by the noble Lord's speech? He is the senior Minister for Defence in this House, and we ought to be able to question the speeches that he makes, in Munich or elsewhere, just as much as we can question speeches by the Secretary of State for Defence. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider that aspect of it?
  The Prime Minister: As I understand it, the eligibility of Questions on speeches made by my noble Friend is a matter for Mr. Speaker and the Table Office, and not for me. A copy of the speech has been made available in the Library in the usual way for all right hon. and hon. Members who wish to read it to do so. The procedure on Questions is not for me to settle, and my noble Friend has no desire to avoid any questions whatsoever on his speech at Munich.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harold Wilson—Business Question.
  Mr. Harold Wilson—
  Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the cowardly murder of two soldiers in Belfast within the last seven days, and the thousands of pounds worth of damage that has been done, would you consider allowing my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence to answer Question No. 25, which he was precluded from answering during Question time?
  Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request. Mr. Wilson—Business Question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of your comments, Mr. Speaker, as one whose golf drives never get on the fairway, but who, whether on the fairway or in the rough, was within five minutes of being able to resume his Prime Ministerial duties, unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I should now like to 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): The business for next week will be as follows :
MONDAY, 19TH JULY—Supply [29th Allotted Day]: The House will immediately be asked to pass all outstanding Votes.
There will be a debate to approve the White Paper FAIR DEAL FOR HOUSING, Command No. 4728.
Remaining stages of the Mineral Workings Bill [Lords].
TUESDAY, 20TH JULY—A debate on economic affairs.
Second Reading of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [Lords] and of the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords], which are Consolidation Measures.
WEDNESDAY, 21ST JULY, THURSDAY, 22ND JULY, FRIDAY, 23RD JULY, and MONDAY, 26TH JULY—Motion to take note of the White Paper on the United Kingdom and the European Communities, Command No. 4715.
At the end on Wednesday, 21st, Orders on Purchase Tax, Housing Corporation Advances, Rating and Valuation and Sea Fisheries.
At the end on Thursday, 22nd, the remaining stages of the Prevention of Oil Pollution Bill [Lords] and the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords].
Mr. Harold Wilson: On Monday's business, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the debate on the Housing White Paper—which must be a matter in respect of which the Government should provide time—is taking place in Opposition time in accordance with the understanding that we should have a
722
refund of that time on an appropriate future occasion?
Second, will he ask his right hon. Friend, in view of the concern expressed in the House about certain remarks that he made when answering questions about the White Paper, whether he will take the opportunity, in lieu of a personal statement, to make clear what he had in mind about the position of the previous Government, and to act in accordance with the proper proprieties of the House in this matter?
With regard to Tuesday's business on economic affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the House may expect to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer a statement on Monday which would, as it were, provide the basis for Tuesday's debate?
Mr. Whitelaw: I confirm what the right hon. Gentleman asked in his first question, that for the convenience of the arrangements the debate is taking place on an Opposition Supply Day in accordance with the usual arrangements which were frequently undertaken in the previous Parliament. We shall repay that day to the Opposition and therefore, technically, I think I can say that this debate, as I accept it should be, is taking place in Government time.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second question is that these matters can be raised during that debate. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's third question is "Yes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on Monday."
Mr. Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the debate on codes of practice which was to have been held last night did not take place. This is a very important matter. Can my right hon. Friend say when the debate will take place, and how much time will be allowed for it?
Mr. Whitelaw: The debate will probably take place during the week after next, certainly before we rise for the Summer Recess. I shall consider the question of time.
Mr. Jay: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed Motion No. 648 which refers to the use of public money by the Government for the dissemination of partisan propaganda?
[That this House deplores the action of Her Majesty's Government in using public funds to finance, and the Post Office to distribute, a propaganda document entitled Britain and Europe, based on a White Paper which this House has yet to approve ; records that such behaviour is contrary to the customs and ethics of British democracy ; and desires that the document be withdrawn.]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the use of taxpayers' money by the Government for this purpose is a disreputable practice which ought to be discontinued?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all appreciate that such are the vagaries of Question Time that often important Questions are not reached, and in that sense there will be a lively sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast. East (Mr. McMaster)? Could he therefore undertake that next week the Government will give an indication of their reactions to the unhappily deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland and, above all, tell the House what is their thinking about the raising of a permanent battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly call the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends concerned to what my hon. Friend has just said. I cannot give any commitment, but I shall look into the whole matter. I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the problem of getting an answer to the Question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).
Mr. Stonehouse: Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that the Motion about genocide in East Bengal and the recognition of Bangla Desh has received the support of more than 210 right hon. and hon. Members, more than one-third of the House?
[That this House believes that the widespread murder of civilians and the atrocities on a massive scale by the Pakistan Army in East Bengal, contrary to the United Nations Convention on Genocide signed by Pakistan itself, confirms that the military Government of Pakistan has forfeited all rights to rule East Bengal, following its wanton refusal to accept the
724
democratic will of the people expressed in the election of December 1970 ; therefore believes that the United Nations Security Council must be called urgently to consider the situation both as a threat to international peace and as a contravention of the Genocide Convention ; and further believes that until order is restored under United Nations supervision, the provisional Government of Bangla Desh should be recognised as the vehicle for the expression of self-determination by the people of East Bengal.]
Since the Motion was put down an official parliamentary group has been on tour in East Bengal. This group confirms that the atrocities continue, and that it would be unwise for the refugees to return. In view of the continuing genocide, is it not urgent that the Motion should be discussed and the matter referred to the United Nations?
Mr. Whitelaw: Without necessarily accepting some of the right hon. Gentleman's points, which are really not for me, I recognise the importance of this particular problem. However, I am afraid that, in present circumstances, I cannot find time for a debate on this Motion.
Mr. Iremonger: Might one day of the debates on the White Paper on the E.E.C. be devoted to Early Day Motion No. 636,
[That this House, recognising the existence of sincere and strongly held views on the question of British entry to the Common Market which cut across party lines, urges party leaders to avoid the damage to the high standing of Parliament and the strong and justifiable resentment of the electorate which would result from any attempt to impose a voting pattern not reflecting these conscientious differences ; and calls for a free vote on this momentous issue, fraught as it is with irrevocable consequences for the British people.]
and my Amendment to it, to leave out from 'House' to the end, and to add :
['notes with regret and surprise that experienced and distinguished Parliamentarians should suggest that the conscience and best judgement of honourable Members are capable of being imposed upon to the extent of altering their voting intentions on a matter of major and historic

725
national importance ; reaffirms its recognition of the fact that all votes in this House are free, subject only to the inevitable conflicts of duty that beset honourable Members in every complex decision they have to make ; denies any suggestion that the classic methods of persuasion still surviving in socialist countries and among Irish guerillas, namely, murder, violence, blackmail and bribery have been attempted in this country since 1922 at the latest ; recognises that a Prime Minister who failed to indicate to the House in general and his supporters in particular the importance he attached to the central issue of his Government's policy would be doing less than his duty ; and will give its usual critical consideration to any guidance he gives when the time comes to vote on Great Britain's association with Europe'.]
Mr. Whitelaw: These are all matters which can be raised in that debate.
Mr. Michael Foot: Reverting to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), will the Leader of the House undertake to make a deeper study of this subject and to make a statement at the beginning of next week on it, because it raises important questions of principle as to whether or not a Government are entitled to use the taxpayers' money to disseminate what many of us believe to be a highly prejudiced account of proceedings on a White Paper which has not even been submitted to the House of Commons? Will he undertake to make a statement to the House next week indicating the precedents on which he is acting?
Mr. Whitelaw: I personally do not accept all that the hon. Gentleman said. I believe that this House and the country have asked for information on this matter, and that is exactly what they are getting.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to this Question, while all right hon. and hon. Members will be free to express their views in the "take note" debate which the right hon. Gentleman has announced, may I ask him to study the rules and conventions in this matter? Is he aware that the authorities responsible for advising Ministers on this question in the past advised the previous Government in two cases on which my memory is very clear
726
—not necessarily controversial areas—that it was contrary to the rules for the Government to issue these popular versions at public expense in any case in which the House of Commons had not decided the principle? I believe that one of them related to social security and superannuation. Would he look into the rules and conventions, and see what advice was given to the previous Government—I am very happy to waive the rules so that he may be told what advice was given to us—and see whether, on this question of propriety, the rules are being followed?
Mr. Whitelaw: Of course I will certainly look into this matter. I note what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Lane: Could my right hon. Friend give us time soon to discuss the proposal that the October debate on the Common Market should be broadcast on the radio?
Mr. Whitelaw: As I told the House during business questions last week, the Service Committee considered this matter, having taken evidence from the B.B.C. The Services Committee, as will be found in a Report to be published today, decided by a majority against such a debate taking place. If there were a general wish in the House that this matter should be debated, in order to give effect to my comments last week that it was a matter for decision of the House, I would of course seek to find time, despite the Services Committee's recommendation.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even those of us who have a committed position on Europe and are in favour of entry feel that there must be some cause for disquiet at taxpayers' money being used for propaganda in post offices on a highly controversial matter which has not yet been debated or discussed in the House? We would ask the Leader of the House to make a statement, having considered the authorities, very early next week.
Mr. Whitelaw: As I promised the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), I will certainly look into this matter. I will go no further than that at the moment.
Mr. Milne: On a point of order. In view of the attitude and answers of the Leader of the House on this subject of

727
the dissemination of propaganda by the Government over entry of the Common Market, may we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on what protection the House has, since this propaganda is being spread despite the fact that neither the House nor the Government will have come to a decision on the question until next week's "take note" debate on the White Paper.
Hon. Members: Not even then.
Mr. Speaker: The Chair has many responsibilities, but they do not include responsibility for what the Government do. That is the Government's decision, and it must rest with them.
Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that the Leader of the Opposition himself congratulated the Government on making extra copies of the White Paper available to hon. Members? Is it not a logical extension of this that the shortened version should be made available to our constituents?
Mr. Whitelaw: Both the main White Paper and the shorter White Paper are, of course, statements of Government policy.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) seeks to extend the question which I thought it was fair to put to the right hon. Gentleman last week, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House must be bound by the rules in this respect, whatever view any right hon. or hon. Gentleman takes of the merits? The House has not been asked to appropriate money for this purpose. No doubt it will be in due course. Is he aware that we were informed—drawing on my memory, I think it referred to a superannuation White Paper of the Government—that, if this were put out on the responsibility of the Government, Ministers or anyone such as their party who were prepared to pay would be surcharged for the expenditure?
Mr. Whitelaw: I said that I would take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. I can only repeat what I said in answer to the previous question—these are statements of Government policy.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Further to earlier questions on Early Day Motion No. 648.
728
If, on re-examining the matter over the weekend, the right hon. Gentleman feels unable to accede to our request in the manner suggested, would he undertake that equal facilities will be given to the spokesmen of the majority of the people of this country, so that their point of view can be put through post offices as well?
Mr. Whitelaw: I will go no further on this subject than what I have properly said to the Leader of the Opposition—that I will look into the matter.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to the question of the White Paper, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is a recognised constitutional function of Government to inform—[Interruption.]— oh, yes, that is established by constitutional authority. Is it not a perfectly reasonable exercise of this function to publish factual information on Government policy, whether in full or abbreviated?
Mr. Whitelaw: I think that I must simply repeat what I have said before—that both these White Papers are statements of Government policy. I have undertaken to the Leader of the Opposition that I will look into the matter.
Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: In view of the important White Paper on the reform of housing finance in Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that we will have a very early opportunity to discuss this important Measure either on the Floor of the House or in the Scottish Grand Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I of course accept the importance of this White Paper. I understand that there are problems about the Scottish Grand Committee, in that, if this were to be done before we rise for the summer, it would mean a Motion changing the Standing Orders of that Committee. That is what I am informed is the position, but of course I am prepared to look into it.
Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all that is required is a Motion in the Government's name referring the White Paper to the Scottish Grand Committee and including the phrase "notwithstanding the relevant rule"? It is as simple as that.
Mr. Whitelaw: Of course, the final words, beginning "notwithstanding …", would mean that one would have to put down a particular Motion and secure a particular Resolution of the House, because that is what it is
Mr. Galbraith: Is not the way around the problem to have a combined debate on Monday? Since the principle is exactly the same, can we not discuss Scottish and English housing together?
Mr. Whitelaw: As the Leader of the Opposition fairly said, Monday started as an Opposition Supply Day. We made the arrangements that we did because they asked on that day to debate the White Paper, Fair Deal for Housing, Cmnd. 4728. which is the English White Paper. That was their wish, and it was their Supply Day. I think that we have done what they asked for.
Mr. Lawson: With reference to Monday's business, and the right hon. Gentleman's persistence in bringing on the Mineral Workings Bill after 10 o'clock that day, will the Leader of the House tell us whether he looked at what the Minister in charge of the Bill in Committee said and how he stressed his assurances that he would do everything possible to ensure that the Bill came on at a time which would give proper opportunity for discussion of the matters which could not be discussed in Committee? I have raised this before. What has the Leader of the House done, and what is he doing about it?
Mr. Whitelaw: I looked into this. I do not think that my hon. Friend's assurances went quite as far as that. I feel that it is reasonable that the matter should be taken at 10 o'clock, and I should like to try to proceed and see how we get on.
Mr. Farr: Only a short space of parliamentary time is required for the final passage of the Television Licensing (Elderly Persons) Bill. Will my right hon. Friend provide that time?
Mr. Whitelaw: No, Sir. I am afraid that, in accordance with my practice regarding Private Members' Bills. I cannot accede to that request.
Mr. Milne: May I refer again to Motion No. 648 and your observations,
730
Mr. Speaker, on the question of Government expenditure in the dissemination of propaganda about Government policy? Will the Leader of the House give an assurance, in view of the widespread anxiety in the House, that he will make a statement on this matter next week giving a clear lead on where Parliament's responsibility lies over the use of public money in this connection and in what way the money has been voted by Parliament for this exercise?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall confine myself to what I have already said to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Marten: Could my right hon Friend say whether copies of the so-called popular edition of the White Paper are being distributed through the Conservative Party machine and, if so, what are the economics of that? If he cannot tell us now, could he tell us next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: The Conservative Party machine is no responsibility of mine. As regards my hon. Friend's comments about a popular version, whatever he may think, it is a very popular version and a great many copies have been taken up.
Mr. Harold Wilson: We congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his dissociation from a most unpopular organisation. In his studies of the matter, which he very fairly offered to make, will he look into such matters as the White Paper of the previous Government on leasehold reform, which, I think, at the end of the day secured the support of the whole House, and other similar Papers, on which, because there had been no vote of the House, no popular version could be put in post offices?
Mr. Whitelaw: I undertook to the right hon. Gentleman that I should look into these matters. Reverting to my comment about the Conservative Central Office, may I say that I have some connection with that body but I am not personally responsible for its activities to Parliament.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend appreciate that anxiety as to the constitutional propriety of what has been done is by no means confined to right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and will he give a full exposition of the precedents governing the matter when

731
he makes his statement next week? Will he dissociate himself from the dangerous implications of the point of view advanced by, I regret to say, my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), realising that there are grave constitutional dangers when the Government of the day take on that sort of rôle?
Mr. Whitelaw: I do not wish to follow what my right hon. and learned Friend has said on this matter any further than I have done, save to say that I have not undertaken to make a statement next week. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] I have undertaken to look into the matter, and that I shall do.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to Motion No. 646, on the withdrawal of Government support for the film industry. Will he provide an early oportunity to debate this matter, recognising, as I pointed out to him last week, that the Parliamentary Secretary has announced an important change in Government policy by Written Answer? This ought not to be allowed to happen, and the House ought to be given an early opportunity to debate such an important change.
[That this House, having noted the success of the National Film Finance Corporation since its inception by a Labour Government in 1949, its promotion of British films enabling British culture and British ideas to be spread around the world, its undoubted success in aiding Great Britain's export drive, and that without subsidy it has, during the last 20 years, helped to finance 750 British feature films plus hundreds of low cost productions, that all this was recognised by the previous Government and it was decided that the continued existence of the National Film Finance Corporation was a desirable measure of support for the film industry and concluded that it should be legislatively support for another 10 years, is shocked to learn that Her Majesty's Government is to reduce the effectiveness of the National Film Finance Corporation by curbing its loans from Government sources and is gradually to withdraw from the financing of films, has imposed upon the Corporation the stipulation that it must in future raise £3 million from private sources in order to
732
qualify for a £1 million loan from the Government ; considers that this is a disastrous change which will have the effect of frustrating the production of British films with its consequent effects upon the employment of British talent, skills and studios, the sales of British films abroad and the gradual curtailment of the presentation overseas of the British way of life through the medium of British films ; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to reverse this mean and shortsighted policy, to restore the previous loan-making powers of the National Film Finance Corporation and to recognise that the public interest demands the maintenance of Government support for the British film industry through the National Film Finance Corporation.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I told the hon. Gentleman last week that I should look into this. I think it was a reasonable way of announcing the decision, and I stand by that at present.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman has batted off a large number of questions, to the satisfaction of the House. I think, until his last answer on the subject, by saying that he would look into the points raised by right hon. and hon. Members and myself. But surely he cannot now say that, when he has looked into it, he will just write a little note to himself and not tell the House about it. The implication is that he must make a statement. I may have misinterpreted the right hon. Gentleman's last observation to the effect that he would not make a statement. Will he now make quite clear that after he has looked into the matter, having been asked all these questions, he will make a statement to the House on what the rules are and whether they are being observed?
Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly look into the matter. The reason why I said no more than that I would look into it is that I was not exactly sure who is the responsible Minister and who should make the statement. If I am that person, I shall, of course, make it. I undertake that there will be a statement. The right hon. Gentleman should not try to be unfair to me. I was not prepared to say that I would make it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I warn to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say.
Mr. Whitelaw: I did not say that I would make a statement because I was not sure whether I was the proper person to make it. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members getting so excited about me. To adopt an analogy used earlier this afternoon, they may think that they have got me deep into the rough, but I have a good habit of coming out rather quickly from such positions.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman must not misunderstand us. As we have such an exciting Leader of the House, we may well on occasion get very excited about him. Will he take it that no one was suggesting that he himself must make a statement if it ought to be made by some other responsible Minister, but we were concerned by one answer which he gave, and, when he looks it up in HANSARD, he will see, I think, why we were anxious, lest it implied that there would be no statement. He has now made the position perfectly clear, and we are satisfied with it.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must proceed to warmer waters. Sir Alec Douglas-Home—statement on Malta.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the refusal of the Leader of the House to provide proper time for debate on Motion No. 646, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you advise me, a comparatively new Member, on how I can be called for a question on business? Many of us feel that our questions are just as important as those which are asked by some of the right hon. and hon. Members who are called week after week. Would you please advise me on how I can catch your eye?
Mr. Speaker: I am very willing to advise the hon. Gentleman. But perhaps it would be better if I advised him in private.

MALTA
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.
I think it is right to inform the House of the situation which has arisen in our relations with Malta over the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements. The first gives Britain the right to station our armed forces in Malta, while the second, which is dependent upon the Defence Agreement, covers the provision of British aid to Malta. Both these Agreements are due to run until 1974.
As soon as he took office on 17th June, the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr. Mintoff, informed us that he wished to replace these Agreements, which, he said, were no longer valid. Then, in a series of messages, he asked that a Minister should come to Malta to negotiate a new agreement under which aid would be replaced by a form of rent for military facilities, and those facilities would be redefined.
He also said that the Minister should come on the basis that the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements were at an end and that the new negotiation should be completed before the end of July. Mr. Mintoff would not elaborate any further on his proposals. This left us in doubt on a number of very important questions, for example Mr. Mintoff's intentions towards N.A.T.O., the redefinition he had in mind for our defence facilities and the financial implications.
Against this background, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent a message yesterday to Mr. Mintoff in which he said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would travel to Valletta in the course of the day and would be ready to discuss with Mr. Mintoff his proposals for modification of the existing Agreements. Lord Carrington's purpose would be to ascertain whether it was possible to negotiate fresh arrangements of a kind which he could recommend to the British Government to approve.
It was in reply to that message that Mr. Mintoff claimed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had rejected

735
all the conditions proposed by Mr. Mintoff for a fruitful meeting. He added as he has since made public in a statement, that he hoped that the Malta Government would not be caused the additional embarrassment of
"having to ignore the presence of the British Cabinet Minister on the island."
To this message my right hon. Friend replied :
"Your message speaks of conditions. I had hoped I had made clear that there cannot be prior conditions in a matter which is essentially one for negotiation : and a negotiation requires that each of the parties should come to the table, with good-will and without prejudice to their respective views, to discuss matters which are of common concern to them in an honest and genuine attempt to reach agreement. It was for this purpose and in this spirit that Lord Carrington would have come to Malta, in the hope of agreeing with you fresh arrangements which he could recommend the British Government to accept. Lord Carrington remains ready to come, but since you say that you would have found this visit embarrassing. I renew my earlier invitation that you yourself, or your representative, should come to London."
We have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that we have no desire to maintain forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. We have also made clear that we are ready to enter into negotiation at Ministerial level, in good faith and without preconditions, with a view to reaching an agreement satisfactory to both sides. We hope that the Malta Government will now agree that talks should start on this basis.
A further message to my right hon. Friend from Mr. Mintoff had been received by telephone just before I came into the House. This message holds out a hope that it may be possible to resolve the difficulty between us, but the House will understand if I say no more until my right hon. Friend has had an opportunity to study the text.
Mr. Healey: I wish, first, to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Government's calm in this rather turbulent situation. I am sure hon. Members will feel that this is a good time, in a particularly hot summer, to allow tempers to cool before resuming discussions. However, I hope very much that the Prime Minister of Malta will accept his invitation to come to London and discuss the matter as a reasonable man round a table.
736
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that Her Majesty's Government have no desire to keep forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. Will he make it clear to that Government that Britain's interest in keeping forces in Malta at this time is comparatively small and arises not out of Britain's national interests but out of our obligations as a member of N.A.T.O.? If this is understood, it seems that some reasonable settlement of this problem can, in the end, be reached.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We very much hope that discussions can be started in a friendly way. After all, in view of the history that there is between this country and Malta, we will lean over backwards to try to get a reasonable discussion started.
The right hon. Gentleman's remarks about our not needing to keep forces in Malta for our own defence purposes or for the defence of the island of Malta are true. As he said, they are part of the N.A.T.O. set-up, which is valuable in the Western Mediterranean.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I add my congratulations on the way in which my right hon. Friend is handling this difficult situation and express the hope that he may reach a solution which is satisfactory both to the people of Malta and to this country? May I also point out that, whatever happens, the regard of the people of this country for the people of Malta will continue in the same way as it has for many years?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can only repeat what I said to the right hon. Gentleman—that we will do our best.
Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the apparent conflict of evidence as to what has taken place between the new Government of Malta and the British Government, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider publishing a White Paper containing all the correspondence that has passed between the two Governments, supplementing the information which he has given to the House this afternoon?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I suggest that the important thing is to try to start

737
negotiations, but I would certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in certain circumstances.
Sir F. Bennett: Is there any provision under the existing Defence Agreement for unilaterally breaking it off before its expiry, a point which many of us will obviously have to bear in mind in thinking of the validity of any assurances about the future?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is no provision for unilateral renunciation.
Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it plain that Her Majesty's Government do not take too serious a view of the message which came yesterday from the Prime Minister of Malta in regard to the visit of the Secretary of State for Defence? There has been a rather hectic interchange and it is now plainly desirable to de-escalate the atmosphere.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think the House will feel that we could not possibly help but take the situation yesterday seriously. We had offered to send a senior Minister of the British Cabinet to discuss the matter in good faith. We had to take the situation yesterday evening seriously ; but, as I said, we hope to start discussions, and Lord Carrington is always ready to go.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I said yesterday that I would rule on the submission on a matter of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I have considered his submission and the precedents carefully.
I must make clear what in my view is the position of the Chair. It is not part of my duty to deal with the substance of a complaint. It would be quite improper for me to pronouce on the merits or the degree of importance to be attached to a particular submission. I simply have to say whether I will give precedence to a Motion dealing with the matter. What happens to the Motion, if moved, is not a matter for me : it is for the House.
I have decided in this case to allow a Motion to be moved now. That is the extent of my decision.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, it falls to me, in accordance with practice, to move.
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
It would, I suggest, be in the best interests of the House as a whole if we decided that no further debate should take place at this stage.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Despite the last few words of the right hon. Gentleman, there is a point I wish to make, though the House will recognise the difficulty in which the Leader of the House is placed. It is his duty, after a Ruling such as you have just given, Mr. Speaker, which no hon. Member would be disposed to challenge, to move a reference to the Committee of Privileges. However, as the House will recognise—this should be said and this is why I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman—that tomorrow the House will be asked to reach decisions about the procedure in privilege cases.
It is not competent for any of us to say what decisions the House will take on the Motions which the right hon. Gentleman will be submitting, some of which may well involve a different procedure in such cases from that which is at the moment the procedure binding on the Leader of the House.
I am making no comment on the validity of the complaint which has been made. When a matter is referred to the Committee of Privileges, the members of that Committee would not wish to prejudice the situation in advance. However, I suggest that as tomorrow the House will be asked to take decisions which could lead to a different procedure, the right hon. Gentleman might care to consider withdrawing his Motion today and then on Monday consider the position again in the light of whatever decision the House has taken. If the House has by that time laid down a different procedure, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have the full backing of the House in following that procedure, whatever it may be.
If, on the other hand, the House in its wisdom tomorrow were to reject his own proposals as Leader of the House so that the present procedure has to be followed, I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will use

739
your discretion to allow the right hon. Gentleman to move this Motion again, in which case I am sure that he would get the assent of the whole House, and the matter would be referred to the Committee of Privileges in accordance with the rules we now have, but which might be different on Monday after tomorrow's debate.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am, of course, very ready to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman says, but we are now placed in some difficulty. I am entirely in the hands of the House, and I certainly wish to know, if other views are expressed, the feeling of the House as a whole.
The problem is simply this. If the new procedure were passed tomorrow, such a complaint at this would have to go straight to the Committee of Privileges, which would decide whether it was a case that ought to be brought to the House as a prima facie case of breach of privilege. That decision would be for the Committee of Privileges in that situation.
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that it is very awkward that this problem should come up now. Now that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that this is a prima facie breach of privilege, it would be difficult for the Committee of Privileges under the new procedure to rule otherwise. That is why I thought that the best way would be to move to refer the complaint to the Committee of Privileges, where over a long period of time these matters have been dealt with, I think, very fairly, and to the great satisfaction of the House as a whole.
Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot rose—
Mr. Whitelaw: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand his feelings, but I think that he owes something to me in that I am bringing before the House tomorrow matters that he has been very keen to have brought forward. I think I am owed that.
I realise the difficulties. I am in the hands of the House, but I thought it right that I should point out the difficulty we are in.
Mr. David Steel Mr. David Steel rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I might help the House a little. I very deliberately did not use the phrase
740
"prima facie case". All I said was that I would allow the Motion to be put. I did so because I was aware of the circumstances.
Mr. David Steel: Without in any way going into the merits of the case at all, I am very sympathetic to what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said. But he will appreciate also that as of yesterday one had recourse only to the existing procedure of the House. I say at once that if it were possible to anticipate decisions which the House might take tomorrow and have the matter referred next week to the Committee of Privileges under the new procedure, if accepted by the House, I would accept that, but I must plainly say that what I am not willing to do is to agree to any suggestion that we should defeat the Motion which has been moved by the Leader of the House and let the matter drop entirely. If I can be assured that it would be dealt with under the new procedure next week, and that it would be possible for me to refer it in writing under the new procedure, I would not press the point now ; but not otherwise.
Sir Robin Turton: I do not quite follow the difficulty mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, the effect of your decision is to give the matter priority. Either we as a House can say that this is a very grave breach of privilege and make our own decision, as has been done in certain cases, or we can remit it to the Committee of Privileges. The only difference, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, is that under the new procedure cases of this nature would in future be considered earlier by the Committee of Privileges. The Committee of Privileges is formed of some very responsible people, such as the Leader of the Opposition. Surely, on the matter being referred to them, they would act taking into account tomorrow's debate.
I cannot therefore see what is the objection to the House doing as it always has done, which is, Mr. Speaker, directly you have made your Ruling to ask for a Committee of Privileges to be set up to look into the matter.
This is a very important question. It is a question of arm twisting, with financial implications. We may all have different views on different forms of arm

741
twisting, but in these circumstances I should not like the country to think that we were sweeping this complaint under the carpet—[HON. MEMBERS : "No."] That might be misinterpreted—
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Harold Wilson: No. I said that the House should remain in command of the situation ; and that the alternatives were either to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges now, when we are bound by the old rules, or on Monday. I said that when the House has determined its procedure the right hon. Gentleman should be free either to refer the complaint to the Committee of Privileges under the new rules or, in the light of anything said in tomorrow's debate, to which he will listen—and the House will decide—he should be free to refer it under the old rules, so that the Motion comes back to the House on Monday. There is no disagreement about that.
Sir R. Turton: I say that it should be sent to the Committee of Privileges. Here is a certain matter alleging arm twisting, with financial implications. With the debate coming on next week, we want to get the complaint to the Committee of Privileges as quickly as possible, bearing in mind that we are nearly at the beginning of the Summer Recess. I therefore very much hope that on reflection the Leader of the Opposition will realise that the correct course is to agree that the matter should go to the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, let me say that there is no suggestion by anybody that the matter should be swept under the carpet. All we want to do is to deal with the matter in the way that the House feels right after tomorrow's debate. We think that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House should be free to come back on Monday, in the light of that debate, and take whatever decision fits in with it. Everyone feels that the question will have to be referred in one form or another, but I suggest that it should be left to the Leader of the House to bring it to the House on Monday.
Mr. Whitelaw: I think I have the sense of what is going on in the House. My
742
trouble lies in whether tomorrow's Motion will be acceptable to the House, because I have specifically said that I shall not wish to press it tomorrow if there is substantial opposition to it. I therefore cannot say whether or not the new procedure will be accepted. I do not know whether there is a way out of this difficulty, but I suggest that one way would be to agree that if tomorrow's Motion does not go through I shall be entitled to move just this present Motion again on Monday. If that were allowed, it might be a way out for the House. But I would have to be allowed to move the Motion again on Monday if tomorrow's Motion were not carried.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Perhaps, as the Leader of the House has spoken more than once, I may have leave to speak again on this point. That is exactly what I have proposed, Mr. Speaker. If you in your discretion can give priority to the Leader of the House on Monday, he should be free then to move whatever Motion seems appropriate in the circumstances.
I would add that because of these special circumstances in which the House is placed, Mr. Speaker, you yourself gave a Ruling different from the Rulings we have known in the past, in that you did not speak of a prima facie breach of privilege. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had to act without precedent by moving a Motion for reference without a Ruling from the Chair that the complaint constituted a prima facie breach of privilege. The right hon. Gentleman took the only step open to him, but without the usual cover from the Chair about prima facie breach.
Surely, in the circumstances, common sense should rule that when the House has taken a decision on procedure tomorrow the right hon. Gentleman should have absolute freedom, Mr. Speaker, within any discretion you can use—and if there is no such discretion, I would be prepared to put down a procedural Motion for the House to allow you that discretion—to do on Monday whatever he thinks appropriate, so that the matter is not swept under the carpet.
Mr. Whitelaw: I must make one point quite clear. If the Motion for the new procedure is passed tomorrow it would

743
not necessarily be under that new procedure that I would come to the House on Monday, because it might be that under the new procedure the Committee of Privileges might decide that this was not a matter which should come before the House at all. The House should know that, because it is within the new procedure.
Mr. Thorpe: I should like to be helped on a procedural point which troubles me. If it could be solved, the very real point made by the Leader of the Opposition would be met. As I see it, if the new procedure is agreed tomorrow there is no alteration in the substance of the complaint ; the merits or demerits of the case are precisely the same under whichever procedure we pursue these matters. But it is within the knowledge of the House that in making a complaint speed is of the essence, and any delay in making that complaint puts the right hon. Gentleman out of order, out of court, on that matter.
I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps that of the Leader of the House, as to what is the effect of delays when you have given the Ruling that you have on this matter, which you consider should have precedence, no more and no less, and then that matter is deferred for three days and a further procedural Motion arising out of that appears on the Order Paper. If delay is not fatal, it seems that we can meet the very proper objections of the Leader of the Opposition. If delay is fatal it seems that we have no alternative but to proceed in one way or another under the existing procedure.
Mr. Speaker: I am in a difficulty. I am longing to give evidence with regard to the prima facie point. I would like to make a speech on the general issue but all I am allowed to do is to give a Ruling. So far as my Ruling
744
is concerned, if it is the general wish of the House, it would be perfectly in order for a Motion to be moved on Monday. Therefore, I will put the matter formally.
Is it your pleasure that the Motion be withdrawn?
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We cannot make rules as we go along. [Interruption.] I am sorry, but nothing is carried and I have as much authority as anyone else. I do not want the House to get into a procedural mess. What I want clearly understood is that notwithstanding anything that we have done today we can consider the matter de novo on Monday. That is the point which is important. It should be pointed out that under the new rules you, Mr. Speaker, are not necessary on Monday. It would go automatically to the Committee of Privileges. That has to be clearly understood. It is only for the sake of clarity and because of a deep interest in this matter that I do not want the House to be misled.
Mr. Speaker: As I understand the position, I have ruled that the matter can be considered de novo on Monday on a Motion moved by the Leader of the House ; in other words, that I will not take the delay point in this instance, as I think that it is the general wish of the House that I should not take it.
Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman knows so much more about this subject than I, and I am very nervous about proceeding further. But I think I am correct in saying that the procedure which we are now following leaves all options open to us, dependent upon what happens in the debate tomorrow, either under the new or the old procedure.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [28TH ALLOTTED DAY].—considered

  HOMELESS PEOPLE (LONDON)
  4.23 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Freeson: I beg to move,
  That this House deplores the Government's delay in acting effectively on the Greve Report on Homelessness in London and other reports on London housing available to Ministers during the past 12 months.
  I start by drawing attention to the first policy objective set down in the 1970 Conservative election manifesto under the heading "Homes for All". This was "to house the homeless". More than a year has passed since then, and what has happened to the record of the Conservative Government in that time? The answer, generally, is many words but virtually no action. That is what the debate is about. It is not about the Government's failure to solve London's housing problems in a few weeks or months. That needs years of consistent effort, understanding, resource and organisation, and during such time there are bound to be ups and downs in the efficacy of policy and how effectively a housing programme can be mounted.
  The debate is about the failure of the Government to act meaningfully on the evidence, conclusions and recommendations of the Greve Report on Homelessness in London and other relevant reports. Right from the start the Government dealt deviously with this report. It was commissioned by the previous Government as part of a general policy of building up full and more accurate data as a basis for housing policy decisions. The study was virtually on Ministers' desks on the day they took office in June, 1970.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: Why was this report, which was commissioned by the previous Government, published not as a White Paper for discussion by Members of Parliament but as a commercial venture through the bookshops? It seems an extraordinary way to publish it.
  Mr. Freeson: I also regret that there could not have been a Government publication. This matter was raised during an exchange in a debate in December, 1970, and there was an agreement between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Birmingham Centre of Urban Research on this matter. I understand that the book which has appeared is not the Report as such but an updated version of the material, based on the Report, using much of the material and material from other sources.
  I am concerned here with what has happened since that report was made available, long before any publication in book form. It was commissioned by the previous Government as part of a general policy of building up information and accurate data as a basis for housing policy decisions, and it was on the desks of Ministers, and certainly within their Departments, on the day that they took office last June. Since early June it had been available in the Departments concerned, yet they pretended that it had not been received. Press reports appeared about its existence in the Department of Health and Social Security and the Housing Department.
  Several of my hon. Friends asked Questions about it, but in November, 1970, the Secretary of State for Social Services told the House that he had not yet received this report. Then, in December, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment told us that the report had been received in June but that it was only a draft version, despite the fact that Professor Greve stated publicly the same month that his research team delivered its final report to the Department early in June.
  This is a strange and somewhat irresponsible way for Ministers to handle an important study concerning the living conditions of millions of people.
  Mr. James Allason: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether it was in Professor Greve's contract that he was responsible for the publication and that the Government had no rights of publication?
  Mr. Freeson: With respect, the point I make is not about publication. The Minister has rightly given an answer on this in December. I am saying that there

  747
  was a denial of the existence of the report by the Department concerned. [Interruption.] I am told that this is "Rubbish". I refer again to the answer given by the Secretary of State for Social Services on 24th November. In an answer to a Question, he said :
  "I have not yet received this report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th November, 1970 ; Vol. 807, c. 68.]
  One month later the Under-Secretary of State said that it was available in June. He said that it was a draft report, whereas it was publicly stated to have been the final version. These are the contradictions. I am concerned today not about when a book was published but about the fact that the Government had the report in their hands in June and denied that they had received it in November.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): Has the hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that we had that report in June but were not allowed to publish because of the terms of a contract made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland)?
  Mr. Freeson: I am talking not about publication but about a denial of the existence of the report.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West) rose—
  Mr. Freeson: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have given way three or four times already.
  I can well understand hon. Members opposite being a little sensitive on this point because they denied and contradicted the facts on several occasions in the House and in public by leaks to the Press. The plain facts is that the report was there, it was denied, and when it was accepted that it was there, we were told that it was a draft report when, in fact, it was a final report.
  Worse was to follow. I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary is laughing. This is no laughing matter. The report having been inherited from the previous Administration in June, 1970, it was not until March of this year, nine months later, that any action was taken by the Government. That action was to set up
  748
  another committee—a joint working party representing the Department of Health and Social Security and the London Boroughs Association. So far as I am aware, judging by the cover note to the report, it did not include representatives from the Department of the Environment, but I am not certain about that.
  The terms of reference included centrally the point that the working party was to consider some of the implications of the Greve Report. Almost one year after the Greve Report was received, on 27th May of this year, the working party issued its first report, hurried along by the fact that publication of the book based upon the Greve Report was to take place the same day.
  The working party's first conclusion was cursorily to reject the case for re-defining the term and concept of homelessness. The Greve Report examines at some length the need for a fuller definition of the term—for example, to cover the many thousands of families and individuals who are potentially homeless, those who are in shared households, split families, and other groups in similar difficulties.
  None of this is discussed by the working party, which simply defines homeless-ness as actual loss of a roof, which is precisely what has been the problem in the past. It is the crudity of this definition which has caused widespread concern and criticism outside Government and inside Government, as well I know from my time in the Ministry.
  The Conservative election manifesto a year ago declared
  "The problem of the homeless is concealed by unrealistic official statistics. We will lay down a more sensible definition …"
  The Secretary of State for the Environment made more than one speech or more than one reference and gave more than one undertaking to do precisely this.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction should tell us this : does the undertaking given in the election manifesto to redefine the homeless still stand? If so, the working party's conclusion, which the Minister or the Secretary of State for Social Services has circulated to local authorities, must be rejected by the Government.
  The rest of the working party's conclusions are commendable—for example,

  749
  that councils should accept an overriding duty to ensure accommodation for homeless families with children ; that where homelessness or family breakdown seems imminent, the homeless should have separate dwellings in the council's housing pool, accommodation being a housing, not a welfare function ; that families should not be evicted or split up by councils ; that social services' functions should be to receive and act on early warnings of homelessness and to take preventive action, assess needs, and give social work support to families ; and that there should be uniform policy and practice throughout the London area.
  I do not demur from one of these recommendations, but was it necessary to wait nine months to appoint yet another committee to repeat these recommendations? Every one of them is to be found explicitly or implicitly in the original Greve Report. Why wait nine months to get a further report repeating the same recommendations?
  I understand that the G.L.C. and the London boroughs have been studying the Greve Report and submitting their views to the Government. Now the Government have sent them the working party's report and have invited them to discuss these proposals as soon as they have studied them. More reports are to follow in similar vein over unspecified periods ahead. I understand from my reading of the first working party report that it will take some time, whatever that may be, before it reaches conclusions on recommendations which arose from the conclusions and evidence stated in the Greve Report originally a year ago. Shall we find ourselves in July, 1972, still asking when the Government propose to act on the recommendations?
  In view of the limited time for this debate and the number of hon. Members who wish to take part in it, I intend to refer to only some of Professor Greve's recommendations. I do not propose to go over much of the ground that he has dealt with so adequately and fully in his report, though I shall refer to some figures a little later.
  I turn first to the recommendation that there is a need which should be examined very carefully for establishing community legal advice services in housing problem areas and housing stress areas. Several organisations have previously
  750
  looked into this. Indeed, some of them have tried to sponsor such services in these neighbourhoods. Perhaps most notable is the study which was undertaken some time ago by the Society of Labour Lawyers, but it is not confined to that. There have been neighbourhood council sponsorships or similar sponsorships in a number of areas.
  Under the previous Government the Lord Chancellor issued a White Paper in January 1970 entitled, "The Report of the Advisory Committee on the Better Provision of Legal Advice and Assistance", Cmnd. 4249. More than 18 months have passed and this report is still being considered by the new Lord Chancellor's Department. May we be told today when the Government will act on this recommendation, which is very largely relevant to the Lord Chancellor's White Paper under the previous Government?
  The next recommendation that I want to mention is that the public needs to be better informed about selection procedures for council housing and the general management of properties and related matters. The Cullingworth Report—"Council Housing, Purposes, Procedures and Priorities"—is particularly relevant here. It was circulated to all housing authorities, if I remember correctly, towards the end of 1969 and was being evaluated in the Ministry prior to June, 1970, with a view to contacts, consultations and discussions with the local authority associations subsequently. That consultation was to follow from our evaluation in the Ministry and the studies that no doubt local authorities themselves were making of the reports, with a view to action being taken of many of the excellent recommendations which, despite the fact that we had not come to firm policy announcements, we were endorsing in speeches which we were making around the country and in our discussions with particular local authorities when we had contact with them.
  Nothing further has been heard for over a year. When will the Government act on the Cullingworth Report, or has it been shelved? May we be told today because it is directly relevant to the Greve recommendation on this point?
  The next recommendation I turn to is that there is a strong case for extending

  751
  security of tenure to furnished accommodation in London. One of the main trends which the Greve Report found was an increase in furnished accommodation with little security, poor facilities, and exorbitant rents. It is within this type of housing that a substantial part of homelessness arises. Yet the Government have refused to act to help these tenants. They number about 200,000 in the London area, and they are for the most part, if not entirely, concentrated in the Inner London stress areas.
  The Government must surely think again in the light of all the evidence presented by Professor Greve and many others on this score. It is absolutely appalling that we are to continue, if the Government persist in their previous decision on this matter, to exclude from further help that section of the London community which is in greatest need.
  Perhaps one of the most important recommendations for the medium and long term was that there should be a regional housing authority with strategic powers and responsibilities for the London area. That recommendation repeats the major recommendation in the Cullingworth Report on London housing submitted to the Government last September. Both Greve and Cullingworth have said that that is a prime and urgent need for London, but no action has been taken, nor has any view been expressed by the Government on the matter, except in one inaccurate sentence in their appendix to the working party's report, where they say that it is the responsibility of the Greater London Council. If that is what the Government believe, they must be the only people in the country who do. It does not appear in the London Government Act, and it is not a view held by the G.L.C., much as its officials and individuals may wish it to be the case. It is not a view of the present position held by anyone who has studied the London housing scene. How much longer do we have to wait before there is a proper evaluation of the recommendation and action is taken upon it instead of there being an inaccurate public statement in the first sentence of comment on it?
  Perhaps the most obvious recommendation, but the most important immediately and in the long term, is that
  752
  the greatest need of the homeless is for more good housing in London.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Freeson: I am glad to hear the Minister say "Hear, hear". I only wish that some of his colleagues in local government had said the same over the past three years and had acted. The overall shortage of houses in London stands at about 250,000. That is the deficiency, irrespective of the condition of property. Apart from exhortation to local councils, letters and meetings, the Government have taken no action to increase the housing effort in Greater London. All that the Minister for Housing and Construction has done on the recommendations, so far as I can gather, is to announce a further conference of authorities in October—to do what, we do not yet know—and to issue Press notices to say that he has asked authorities to pursue a vigorous building programme and has requested outer areas to help the inner area's housing needs. Is that what he calls dynamic action? The Department is not even monitoring the results of such requests. Questions were asked in the House about land assembly and no answers were forthcoming. One of the big problems is inadequate monitoring, as I discovered when I was at the Ministry. Has there been any follow-up?
  Let us remember when I make these comments that the Tories' first housing policy objective in their Manifesto was to house the homeless. I hope that the Minister will not trot out for too long his usual answer to every housing problem put to him, by referring to the White Paper on housing finance. We shall debate the rights and wrongs of that next Monday. What is important for today's debate is that 200,000 tenants of furnished tenancies in London who are most at risk of homelessness are excluded from its provisions. Yet the Greve Report shows that a disproportionate number of people who become homeless are from furnished tenancies. In boroughs with most homeless families, such as Kensington, Westminster and Camden, from one-quarter to one-third of the dwellings are furnished tenancies. But borough figures conceal the worst position. For example,

  753
  in my own borough of Brent the percentage of furnished tenancies is 12·7, but in Willesden, which is part of the borough, the figure rises to 30 to 40 per cent. in stress areas. Haringey has a figure of 12·5 per cent., but in parts of Tottenham, which is within Haringey, it rises to 30 per cent. In such areas hundreds of thousands of people gain nothing from the White Paper, though they pay the highest rents and are among those most liable to become homeless.
  The White Paper provides no extra help for housing improvements, modernisation and conversions in the twilight inner zones where families suffer the worst conditions. Above all, it does nothing to ensure that land in outer London is used to rehouse overcrowded families at risk in inner London as part of a bigger housing drive. That is the key issue. There is a net shortage of 250,000 homes and there are about 150,000 slums. There are 250,000 substandard dwellings in inner London. Therefore, London authorities need to build about 40,000 homes a year, clear about 15,000 slums and have about 40,000 sub-standard dwellings modernised if we are to solve our main problem in the 1970s.
  Does the Minister accept those figures? If he does, what does he propose to do to achieve them, not immediately but within a reasonable period, a period which he might suggest? If he does not accept the figures—and he has been very shy in his public pronouncements about discussing such facts—perhaps he would like to tell us why he does not when they are figures drawn from within the Department when I was there.
  For a few years we were on the road toward achieving such figures. Local authority housing starts rose from about 18,000 in 1963 to 31,000 in 1967 in the Greater London areas. Then the Conservatives won control of the G.L.C. and subsequently of most town halls in 1968. From then on the housing effort slumped, and it is now running at about 20,000 housing starts a year. Only 5,000 slums a year are being cleared, and that figure looks like dropping as the number of dwellings in slum clearance representations to the Minister has dropped over those three to four years from about 7,600 in 1967 to about 3,500 in 1970. House modernisation is running at 10,000
  754
  to 12,000 a year, an increase over previous figures, but we have yet to see whether the graph will show a constant and rapid move toward the kind of figure which is essential if we are to clear up the problem of obsolescence in London.
  If the figures I have given continue, they spell disaster for London and continuing hopelessness for the homeless. Fresh initiatives must be taken. They may well have to cut across autonomy, and not only in local government. Like Greve, I
  "… recognise that consideration of the limits of local discretion, and of variation in policies, raises sensitive and complex principles—of relations between central and local government and of 'local self-government'."
  But there is an overriding issue—our responsibility to end the urban squalor which millions of men, women and children have to suffer. If present methods are inadequate to do this, others have to be tried.
  I want to put some of the proposals that we were studying when we left office last year. First, the Government should, in my view, direct the G.L.C. and the appropriate London boroughs to undertake an immediate and speedy listing of available sites for residential development. These should be purchased by negotiation or compulsory purchase order where necessary, and I have reason to believe that homes for about 60,000 people could be built on sites which could be made available in this way within the next two years as a first stage only.
  Secondly, if the G.L.C. does not act, the Minister should act directly on the survey concerned. There are plenty of Labour-controlled councils now which will be glad to co-operate. He should act directly to plan the purchase of the sites in question with the local authorities and possibly the Housing Corporation or appropriate housing associations. It is a pity that, in their ideological attitude towards this problem, the Government have ensured that the Land Commission is no longer available to be used for this purpose. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will not smile too broadly at that because discussions were going on at one time between the G.L.C. and the Land Commission with a view to the Land Commission acting directly on assistance to local government in urban renewal areas.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: How many acres of land did the Land Commission manage to find in Croydon, which was one of the operations it was concerned about?
  Mr. Freeson: The Land Commission had not completed the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman should listen to what I am saying. It had been approached by the G.L.C. to discuss ways in which there could be co-operation in urban renewal. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned that Croydon should assist in dealing with the London housing problem, I suggest that he makes urgent and strong representations to the local authority concerned so that it may offer land to the Inner London boroughs, which wish to build, or the G.L.C., which wishes to build. He should make representations not to me but to the Minister and the Conservative-controlled council concerned. The Minister should act directly, as I have suggested, to get this purchase undertaken.
  Thirdly, the Secretary of State should request, or if necessary direct, British Rail to make available immediately as much as possible, if not all, of the approximately 1,000 acres of its non-operational and surplus land for housing and related purposes. He should also direct that air and decking rights should be available immediately. I give a small example—small only in relation to the total problem. In my borough alone, this would provide about 100 acres of land for urban renewal purposes, with homes for about 3,000 families, or 9,000 people. Directions should be issued regarding air space rights for municipal housing by building on decks, specifically at such places as Victoria, Euston, King's Cross and St. Pancras, immediately to end the procrastination which has been going on for years under whichever Government. This would be of particular value as a contribution to solving the problem of the large and growing number of single people living in London. The problem of the single person household has been brought out by the Greve and other reports.
  Fourthly, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, directions should be issued to such organisations as the gas boards and electricity
  756
  boards to release and make available within a specified period surplus property and sites for residential development, particularly when they are in the middle of residential areas needing urban renewal. There are several gas stations and power stations in the London area about which no conclusions or decisions have been taken for a long time in the past and about which there should be urgent discussions to bring them into the housing land pool.
  Fifthly, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Social Services, directions should be issued to regional hospital boards to act similarly. There are many acres of land which are frozen by hospital holdings dating back many decades and which could be brought into use. This is land which has been held on speculation against need for future hospital services. In my borough—no doubt there is a similar situation in others—30 or 40 acres are standing idle because of this which could be brought into the pool for urban use, whether for housing or other purposes, providing homes for about 4,000 people if necessary.
  My last major point links up with the recommendations of the Greve and Cullingworth Reports for a strategic authority. I believe that there is a strong case for developing through the G.L.C., in co-operation with the London Boroughs Association, some form of urban renewal agency which, if necessary, could use the National Building Agency and the Housing Corporation and other selected bodies as instruments for this purpose. If the G.L.C. does not co-operate on this, or, indeed, on other matters to which I have referred, the Minister should use his reserve powers under the Housing Act, 1957, to direct that authority and, if necessary should use his powers to step in himself and sponsor such an agency. I believe that after the first three years of build-up following the establishment of such a working operation, such an agency could be building 3,000 to 4,000 homes a year in addition to the local authority effort in London.
  I do not put forward this programme a panacea—far be it from me. But I do put it forward as essential to developing the strategic policy of action on land assembly and development which London's homeless in the widest sense of that

  757
  term needs. A year has gone by characterised by slick public relations exercises and delays. We condemn the Government for this and call on them to act directly to implement the vital recommendations of the Greve, Cullingworth and other reports. They should act soon lest the heart of our city dies. The situation is grim, and it threatens to become grimmer still under present policies.
  4.58 p.m.
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): I beg to move, to leave out from first 'the' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
  'legacy of homelessness and housing shortage in London inherited from the last administration ; welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government, together with the London authorities, to secure better provision for homeless people in London ; and expresses confidence in the determination of Her Majesty's Government to solve these problems as quickly as possible'.
  The Opposition have launched this debate on a partisan Motion and the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) moved it in a partisan speech. I make no complaint of that. We have replied in kind. The Amendment draws attention to the legacy we inherited. Of course both parties are legatees of history in the problem of London's housing but clearly if there is to be any choice or balance as to where the heaviest responsibility lies, it is a little hard to deny that it lies more heavily on those who had six years in which to tackle the problem than on those who have only had one. [HON. MEMBERS : "Thirteen years."] We did rather well in those 13 years. I keep hearing arguments unsubstantiated that the problem has been getting worse in the last few years, not better.
  But between the underlying and natural clash of opinion which arises from the two-party system, there is an appreciation on both sides, especially among London Members, that we are facing one of the most intractable problems, both social and, above all, human, because it involves individual families, that those responsible for urban policy have ever had to face. Its implications are so obvious as to be clear to the meanest intellect and felt by the hardest of hearts, but it has proved intractable to successive local and central administrations. It has baffled Governments, it has baffled
  758
  the L.C.C., it has baffled the G.L.C. and it has baffled local authorities down the years.
  I think that our debate would be most useful if, speaking for the Government, I concentrated particularly on the problems facing us and their solution, but before doing so I must reply to some of the charges made by the hon. Member for Willesden, East. I confess to being astonished by the charge of delay in the Government's handling of the Greve Report. It comes particularly strangely from a member of the previous Administration.
  The Labour Party issued circulars to local authorities on the subject of homelessness in 1966 and 1967 calling for reports on the problem, and it even took action on some of them. But, for some reason best known to themselves, right hon. Gentlemen opposite left the consideration of the London reports to the end. This seems rather odd as this is the most serious of all the homelessness problems. It was not until February, 1969, that the Greve Report was commissioned.
  The arrangement under which it was commissioned was odd. It was not to be a specific report to the Government to be published by the Government, but a report to which the Government were to have access, for which the authors were paid, and whose auhors were to be free to publish and to have the sole copyright when publishing.
  What Professor Greve has called his preliminary report was available in January, 1970, and it was seen by Ministers at that time. But it was a preliminary report, and I do not blame Ministers for not acting on it at the time. What he has called his final report was presented in early June, just before the election, and I do not know whether Ministers even had time to look at it in that period. It was in the Department, not on Ministers' desks, when the election was over.
  But although Professor Greve has called it a final report, to some extent this is a misnomer, because the report as it then stood was based on 1967 figures. It took no account of the latest report, the Third Report, of the Standing Working Party on London's housing needs, nor of a good deal of other material which was available to the Department. The Department collated material which it had

  759
  and which it thought would be helpful to Professor Greve to enable him to bring his report sufficiently up to date for Ministers to be able to take action upon it. The material thus collated was passed to Professor Greve in August, 1970, that is, within a couple of months of the report being received in the Department of Health and Social Security.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services said in November that he had not received the report, he was absolutely right. The Department had received what Professor Greve has chosen to call the final report, which was a report which did not take account of the Third Report of the Standing Working Party or a great deal of other material. It was not until January, 1971, that Professor Greve was able to evaluate and take account of the additional information supplied to him.
  It was thus in January that we had the report for which the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) had originally asked, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Willesden, East would be the first to agree, and that the whole House would be ready to agree, that if one commissions a report, it is no use trying to act on it until one has the final report, taking account of the latest evidence available.
  Mr. Freeson: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the report of the Standing Working Party on London's housing needs up to 1974, the basis of which was passed to Professor Greve, was out of date by the time it was published in August last year, as is made clear in the Greve Report analysis? In view of what he is saying, would the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether any recommendations or conclusions in the original report, the final report, as Professor Greve has called it, which was published last June, were changed in January as a result of the further statistical information provided by the Department?
  Mr. Amery: I have no idea to what extent the hon. Member is right in saying that it is already out of date. It is certainly a good deal more out of date than the information on which Professor Greve had been working and which had been available in February, 1970.
  Mr. Freeson: Answer the question.
  Mr. Amery: I am answering. It was not made available to Professor Greve before he came to publish the final report. How far he took account of the additional information we gave him is his business and his affair and does not in the least invalidate what I am saying—that if one commissions a report and one gets a report based on statistical information which is not up to date, it is the duty of the Government Department concerned to provide the additional information to the person or persons making the report, and it took Professor Greve from August, 1970, to January, 1971, to make up his mind on how far the further information provided was of interest in enabling him to produce his final version.
  Within a few weeks of receiving the final version, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services acted. He set up a working party. I am glad to say that it was not a question of nine months later, as the hon. Gentleman has been suggesting, but within less than a month of receiving Professor Greve's final conclusions on the inquiry with which he had been entrusted by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East.
  Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make this clear? I asked whether the conclusions and recommendations had been changed in January from the original report in June. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not know but he now says that Professor Greve made some final conclusions in January, this year.
  Mr. Amery: I must assume that, being a conscientious academic, Profesor Greve would not have sat on additional information between August and January unless he thought that there was something worth giving careful consideration to.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Department of the Environment was represented on the working party. Of course it was : it was there with the London boroughs and the Department of Health and Social Security, and the G.L.C. provided an observer. It produced its report on 27th May, that is to say, within four months of the time that the Department of Health and Social

  761
  Security received the final conclusions from Professor Greve. I do not see that there can be any charge of delay here.
  The hon. Gentleman was not very friendly to the working party. He is entitled to his view. Personally I should like to pay my tribute to it for the speed with which it worked and for the substance of its report. I find myself in broad agreement with what it said and at any rate it provides a sound basis for talks with the London authorities.
  The hon. Member referred to an undertaking of the party of which I have the honour to be a member. When in opposition we said that we would produce a more sensible definition of "homeless-ness". While the Labour Party was in power, the only definition available—I am not saying the Labour Party liked it or approved of it particularly, but it was the only one available—in any statistics was that an application for temporary accommodation had been received and accepted.
  We thought that this was not a very sensible definition and the working party has given us a new definition. It has given the term a triple sense : first, the actual loss of a roof over the family's head ; secondly, a situation in which the loss of a roof is virtually certain ; thirdly, circumstances in which, on professional judgment, there is a serious risk of family breakdown as a result of housing needs and social stress. I do not say this is a definition on which we can rest for all time but it is one which corresponds closely to that of the Council for Social Services. It is not an academic definition but a directive for action and shows three spheres in which local authorities and central Government should work to eliminate what we call homelessness.
  The working party has not been disbanded. It is turning its attention to the social services aspect of the problem and looking at the problem of the single homeless person to which Professor Greve in his book made reference although it gives little detail. It will also consider what further statistical or other studies are needed over the whole front and will produce a further report for Ministers and local authorities. Where the Greve Report and the work of the working party is concerned no charge of delay can be made.
  762
  In considering this problem of homelessness there is a paradox. London's population is by all accounts, and on all statistical information, falling. Yet the problem is no easier and, according to some authorities, it may be getting worse. How does this happen? Partly because people are marrying younger and living longer, with a resultant need for more individual homes. It may also be that the stringent rent controls applied over many years, and particularly since 1965, have reduced the number of rooms available to let. Certainly Professor Greve took that view at page 212 of his book. Whatever the precise reasons, all of us recognise that the underlying cause of homelessness, apart from psychological and human difficulties, is the simple physical shortage of houses. This is the real problem with which we have to wrestle and it is to that problem that I now turn.
  The London housing shortage is very clearly defined in the standing working party report on London housing which was ready in February, 1970, although not published until July of the same year. This report is basically an assessment of housing progress between 1966 and 1969. It estimates the size of the problem in the immediate future and suggests that, if we go on as we did in 1968, Inner London will have a deficit of about 100,000 dwellings in 1974 with a further 150,000 unfit or in urgent need of improvement.
  The situation is rather worse than that, since the 1968 rate of building was not maintained in 1969 or 1970. I would put the possible deficit in 1974 as high as 120,000 if we go on at the 1968 rate. The hon. Member for Willesden, East suggested that some responsibility lay with the Conservative authorities. This is a view I have heard expressed before.
  Mr. Freeson: It is a fact.
  Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman says that it is a fact. I am sorry to disappoint him. I have had a look at some very interesting statistics which show the building programmes of those boroughs which changed their allegiance from Labour to Conservative. I will compare the performance of four of the boroughs with the worst housing problems in the two years immediately preceding the election year with their performance in

  763
  the two years following it. I am taking the election year as 1968. Two of those boroughs changed from a Labour to Conservative administration. They were Islington, which increased the number of houses put to tender from 2,100 to 3,000, and Lambeth which managed to increase the number for 1,350 to 2,200.
  The remaining two boroughs kept their Labour administrations. Southwark managed to put only 2,850 houses to tender against 3,600 before 1968 while the Tower Hamlets figure fell from 2,000 to 1,400. Hon. Gentlemen can look around and make their own examples and they will find statistics proving almost any variation of cases they like. I am asking the House to conclude that it is totally unfair and unwise to generalise and to say that one party is more or less efficient than the other in getting houses built in the public sector.
  On taking office we recognised the gravity of this situation. In July my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Housing and Local Government commended the Third Report of the Standing Working Party to all the London borough authorities and published it for the first time. He stressed the need to pursue a vigorous programme of public as well as private building. He urged Outer London to help Inner London. He stressed the importance of improvement grants and the setting up of housing aid centres. In October—
  Mr. Scott: Does the third report take account of the loss of residential accommodation presently occurring in Central London because of the spread of hotels into what have been residential areas?
  Mr. Amery: Only up to 1969. In October my right hon. Friend and I met the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs Association to lay the foundation of a common policy designed to produce the beginnings of a strategy for dealing with a problem which we thought had not as yet been effectively tackled. In April I met the leaders of the stress area boroughs to discuss the consequences and conclusions of the Francis Report. We had long deliberations from which a number of specific suggestions emerged. They are being studied in those boroughs and they have promised to report to me by October.
  764
  Since then I have called for a conference of all London boroughs and the G.L.C. to meet me to discuss these problems. I had hoped to hold the conference before the House rose, but it proved on examination that after the changes which had occurred in many boroughs after the last local elections it would be more fair to allow the new authorities time to settle down. We propose to meet in September.
  The hon. Member took up suggestions made by Professors Greve and Culling-worth on the importance of setting up a regional housing authority to tackle the problem of housing in metropolitan London as a whole. I am not yet convinced that the G.L.C. has not got all the necessary powers to do this, but I am content to proceed on the basis of the old hymn "One step enough for me", and to accept Professor Cullingworth's view that the first step should be voluntary co-operation in the assessment of London's housing needs through the London boroughs, the formulation of an adequate metropolitan policy for their solution and the determination of the contribution to be made by each borough in the effective control and implementation of such a policy.
  The conference I have called is not the first step towards setting up a metropolitan authority, but it will help all those concerned and central Government to work out an overall strategy for the attack on London's housing problem.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: As the situation is as serious as we know it to be, could we not stop the destruction of decent, existing houses which is going on, particularly by the G.L.C. in order to build new roads in London?
  Mr. Amery: The balance between communications and housing is a difficult and delicate one. It takes place to a great extent inside the Department. We try to weigh one, then the other. The problems of the capital depend not only on the circumstances of those who live there but of those who have to come in and work there. Those who live there depend on good transport to bring in supplies. The right hon. Gentleman may have particular points in mind on which he feels strongly, but I cannot give him a general reply saying that priority should necessarily go one way or the other.

  765
  There are many sectors of the battle against London's housing situation. Our information shows that there are a number of empty houses—something like 1,500 in the expanded towns, about 1,000 in East Anglia. I am glad to say that arrangements have been made by my Department and the G.L.C. to increase the flow of families from Greater London to these areas. The aim of these arrangements will be to make it easier for those who want to go to those towns and who have got jobs to go to or who do not need jobs because they are retired, regardless of whether they are on the waiting list. The G.L.C. will be discussing this with the housing associations.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: In his discussions with the local authorities and the G.L.C., will the right hon. Gentleman be re-examining' the question of densities for new development in the Inner London area?
  Mr. Amery: Yes ; that will be one of the problems discussed, although it does not relate directly to the new towns.
  We have discussed the question of furnished tenancies before and I do not want to go over all the ground again. There are over 200,000 furnished tenancies in London. It is very hard to say how many are permanent accommodation and how many are genuinely furnished lodgings used by a transitory population. But I stand by the view of the majority of the Francis Committee that if we were to give the same security to furnished tenancies as we give to unfurnished tenancies there would be a very serious risk of the supply of furnished tenancies drying up altogether.
  There is an interesting parallel in this respect. The Milner Holland Report, in recommending the regulation of rents, the maintenance of repair standards and the establishment of security of tenure warned that measures on these lines, unless they were associated with measures to stem the loss of privately rented housing, would be "disastrous". That warning was ignored. Rent regulation and security of tenure were introduced, but nothing was done to make letting a less unattractive proposition. The result has been a continual shrinkage of the privately rented sector, the consequences of which are well illustrated by the Greve Report.
  Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Would the Minister say whether the decline in the rented sector was accelerated by the 1965 Act, whether it had been affected by the 1957 Act or whether there had been a constant decline long before the 1965 rent regulations were introduced?
  Mr. Amery: It was certainly accelerated by the 1965 Act. Professor Greve shares that conclusion, as appears from page 212 of his book. I am still trying to discover how much of the decline in rented unfurnished accommodation has gone into the furnished sector and into owner-occupation. From the evidence I have, it would seem that much the greater part has gone into the owner-occupation sector.
  To follow up the flouting of the Milner Holland warning by flouting the warning given by the majority of the Francis Committee would be a rash gamble, the cost of which would be paid in years to come by the neediest people in London. Land availability is a continuing problem, especially in London. Even allowing for the potential of the docks and Covent Garden, we shall still be faced with a very big problem.
  In his Circular 10/70, my right hon. Friend asked all local authorities to take steps to secure the immediate release of more land for house building and particularly to make more land available for private building. In London, this has proved a difficult task because of the general shortage of land zoned for housing and because the overall needs of the metropolis must be borne in mind before a borough can legitimately dispose of any land it does not want.
  I am therefore following up the circular with a letter to each of the London borouhs asking them to let me know of any land not at present zoned for housing which they think could be better used for that purpose. I will then take further steps with my colleagues in the Department to work for its release. I am also undertaking an urgent review within central Government and with the nationalised industries and public utilities to see what land there is in London surplus to requirements which could be made available for housing.
  These are all points which the hon. Member for Willesden, East raised and

  767
  about which he and his colleagues, when they were in office, did not seem to do very much.
  Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman uncover the report which exists in the Department about which it has been impossible to get any information because it has been lost sight of and which was dealt with by the last Government concerning surplus British Railways land in 1965–66? There seems to be no way of getting information about it from the right hon. Gentleman's Department.
  Mr. Amery: I will look into that point. It may be that it has got lost—like the report which the Leader of the Opposition got so excited about on Tuesday.
  The G.L.C. has mounted an availability survey at the request of the Inquiry Panel into the Greater London Development Plan. All these considerations will form part of our discussions at the September conference with the London boroughs. But the essence of the problem lies in improving existing houses and saving them from becoming slums. Here I believe that our reform of housing finance will prove a shot in the arm. Landlords will have an incentive to improve their houses while at the same time tenants will be protected against any hardship by the rent allowances proposed. There has already been a substantial upswing in slum clearance in the first part of this year compared with the first part of last year, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will, I hope, be able to give the relevant figures when he winds up the debate. Our proposals for housing finance will give a shot in the arm to slum clearance.
  It is quite wrong to think that in an area of stress like London there will be a setback to the building of council houses. On the contrary, London authorities which want to build more council houses will have my full support and will benefit. One of the chief effects of the new subsidy arrangements will be to increase the financial help which the Government give to boroughs with severe housing problems which are having to subsidise the provisions of council housing very heavily from their general rate fund. The exact effect will vary from borough to borough, but in some
  768
  cases the burden on the rates could be reduced by as much as 40 or 50 per cent. Perhaps more important, that burden will no longer continue to grow at the frightening rate which was occurring under the old arrangements.
  But it is not only—perhaps not mainly—in council housing that a solution must be sought. It is perhaps above all in new building for private ownership and in the extension of home ownership. Here the measures we have already announced for encouraging home ownership and facilitating mortgages will play their part. There is an upward trend in the building or private houses all over the country. The upward trend in the number of starts in the private sector has been very marked in Greater London. There has been a fundamental assumption, on which we have all agreed, that Inner London and Outer London must work together and the building of new houses in Inner and Outer London will help to facilitate solving the overall problem.
  The building of new houses by all agencies will produce a fresh elasticity throughout the London housing market and thus help to ease the overall problem. I believe that the combination of our policies for the encouragement of home ownership, for the improvement of existing property, for the reform of housing finance and for the acceleration of slum clearance will, with the cooperation of the London boroughs and the Greater London Council, enable us to make a major inroad into this the most intractable of our social problems.
  But I do not think that we should leave the matter there. After all, London is one of the greatest capitals—I think the greatest capital—in the world. It has 2,000 years of history behind it. It attracts people from every continent. It will be a great European capital. But so often great capitals present an ugly contrast between wealth and squalor. We must resolve not to allow that contrast to develop in London and, where it exists, to knock it on the head. We must resolve to overcome this grim, social and human problem, and I believe that the steps on which the Government have embarked will make their contribution to that end.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert GrantFerris): I remind the House that there

  769
  is just an hour left for back-bench speeches. The conclusions which hon. Members will draw from that are too obvious for me to emphasise.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to participate in this short debate, and I promise to be brief. I will not use some of the material which I intended to use, in the hope that as many Members as possible who wish to speak will be able to do so. I would dearly love to take up some of the Minister's remarks, but I shall try to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on Monday and perhaps deal with them in greater detail then. I shall confine myself today to making some remarks on the homeless and homeless families.
  I start with the very important question of the definition of need. This has become more and more confused in recent months by various reports. I do not think people, certainly in my locality of north St. Pancras and the London Borough of Camden generally, are too worried about who produced this report or continued with that one, who commissioned this and who did that. That does not make one bit of difference to them. Most of them are very interested in the problem itself, and it is to that I hope, we shall devote most of our time in this short debate. The question of definition is extremely important, not just an abstract, academic exercise, because it will determine need and also how we use the resources available to help solve the problem. Camden, which is the local authority I know best, has 9,000-plus on the waiting list, and a council like that has the necessity of narrowing the definition and the meaning of homeless-ness to families who are actually without roofs over their heads. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact of life.
  The Catholic Housing Aid Society and Shelter, and many other organisations, have gone much further in their definition and I would agree that a wider and more realistic definition would be along those lines as those organisations have defined them, and would include the young married couple who cannot even live in the same house together. Then there is the well known problem of the large family so overcrowded that they must dismantle the bed to make room to set
  770
  up a table. That is not unknown in inner London. I would agree with the wider definition as outlined by the Catholic Housing Aid Society and Shelter and others. At this stage there is a necessity for Camden and for other local councils to narrow the definition to deal with the huge problem we have on our hands.
  I move quickly on to the causes. The Minister has quite rightly said that the major, the prime, cause of overcrowding is insufficiency of good houses at reasonable rents. That could be the basis of a half-hour speech about what the present Government's policy is doing about that situation. We can say that their policies will have exactly the opposite effects from those which we desire.
  Camden lacks something like 30,000 units, either new or improved dwellings, to deal with its own immediate problem ; in that one borough there is a deficiency of 30,000 dwellings. I quote Camden because I know it exceedingly well. I have lived there for over 37 years. The ironical thing is that improvement, however good it is, in that borough or in other Inner London boroughs, produces only more homelessness. The side effect of improved housing is the question of densities. As we improve housing and improve standards, in most areas we reduce densities and create overspill. This is an exceedingly difficult problem, which exacerbates the problem of homelessness. The basic cause is lack of land. This was mentioned both by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and the Minister. It is the lack of land in Inner London.
  It is just not good enough to say that we can filter out the excess population into Greater London and to other areas, because that in itself has many drawbacks. All of us who have people coming to us in our advice services know those who plead with us, "For heaven's sake, can't you do something to get us back into Inner London?" We cannot move people around as though they were draughts on a board. They do not want to pay increased fares travelling between Outer London and Inner London to work, for instance. Moving people out has many drawbacks. It is a glib policy to say, "We have been able to move people about". That policy is a failure in many instances.

  771
  Another aspect with which I am particularly concerned is the balance within the socio-economic groups left in inner London as a result of the movement of population. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, I know, have sincere feelings about this, and we are all concerned about the kind of balance which is left in Inner London in areas like Camden, Westminster, Paddington, Islington, as a result of previous policies by both Governments and all councils. I exempt none of them. For example, in Camden we have more than the average of managerial and professional people. We have probably our fair share of semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, although we have a grave deficiency of skilled manual workers. There is a deficiency in non-manual workers and of the self-employed, and they are necessary ingredients to a balanced community. This must be something which bothers us all.
  If London's population is declining it will be difficult to maintain even the existing balance, and there will be a greater demand on the social services and rent and rate rebate schemes in future as a result of this Government's policies being followed.
  So there must be some kind of solution based on land use. This calls for the maximum use of the sterile railway lines, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East, and a reexamination of the density position. We are particularly vulnerable in Camden. Having said that there should be a reexamination of densities I know that I shall call down denunciation upon my head, as I have before over several years, because of the conflict which there is between the preservationists, who are determined to maintain open spaces such as there are at Hampstead Heath, Witan-hurst, and Branch Hill, and many other places, and people in great need of homes. I have a great deal of sympathy with the preservationists. There are areas where there are 10 houses per acre and a maximum of 30 persons per acre. There is a conflict between the preservationists and people in, for instance, the southern part of the borough where there are 200 people to the acre. Thus there is an argument for a re-examination of densities, certainly in some Inner London boroughs.
  772
  I want to mention very briefly the question of furnished accommodation which, in my area, accounts for over 23 per cent. of households. Contrary to popular belief, those people are by no means fly-by-nights, or people who just move around. On the contrary, they are people who have lived there for two years, at least, and some of them for much longer. This is where I differ in the main from the majority of the Francis Committee, which semed to infer that some of these families were birds of passage, who just flutter from borough to borough. This is quite untrue in Camden. They live in these furnished places because they have no other choice. It is as simple as that. There are some who need that kind of accommodation, and even that sort of accommodation is dwindling. I cannot support the majority view of the Francis Committee. It is well known that I support the minority view put forward by a member of Camden Council. To that extent, perhaps, I have a vested interest in the minority report. I welcome it, nevertheless, as being, if not a more honest, a more accurate reappraisal of the situation of furnished accommodation in inner London.
  The majority view of the Francis Committee that these families move around is not true. On the contrary, they are at perpetual risk of becoming homeless. In my locality in 128 known cases in 1970 that risk became a reality. These people were rendered homeless and local authority housing had to be provided. This year there have been 132 evictions from furnished accommodation in Camden, and those people have had to be dealt with by the housing department, the social services department and so on. These figures do not include cases dealt with by the social services department under the National Assistance Act. In the main these are people who had been evicted from furnished accommodation. Seldom were they evicted for the nonpayment of rent. The reasons for eviction were usually the sale or development of the property to provide a bigger investment, or the improvement of the property, which causes great problems. This bears heavily not only on single persons but also on immigrant families who usually have to go into furnished accommodation in the first place.

  773
  If a housing and social and welfare problem exists anywhere, it is in Camden. We have the main line stations, and we are close enough to Paddington and Marylebone to be affected by the southward drift of population. I cannot divorce this drift from the Government's general economic policies, and I anticipate a worsening of the situation. People come from areas where there are houses but no jobs into areas where there are no houses but where there may be jobs.
  The status of the homeless is another aspect which must be considered. The provisions of the National Assistance Act, 1948, were designed to deal with emergencies caused by unforeseen circumstances, and no one can say that the present housing shortage was unforeseen. Those provisions have created a vast army of second-class citizens who live for long periods in temporary accommodation known as Part III, or sometimes Stage 2. The application of those provisions has created in our midst the hopelessness which all hon. Members will have met when confronted by these unfortunate people. Homelessness, except for a minority of problem families, is the result of losing out in this highly competitive society. The least clever have the worst luck, and for their failure they are set apart, until society is prepared to grant them the right to enjoy living in a normal community. The segregation of homeless families, even just for a few months and with the full benefits of the assistance of professional and social workers creates an impression of punishment. The sooner homeless families are regarded as needing decent housing accommodation, the sooner we shall be on the road to enabling them to bring up their children as self-reliant citizens.
  I have outlined some of the problems affecting inner London and Camden, and I hope that the Minister will reply on the problem of homlessness and leave Monday's debate as a separate issue. I hope that he will have in mind the drift to London being caused by the economic policies of the Government and that he will ask his right hon. Friends to rethink their policies in the light of what we have said.
  Mr. Allason: On a point of order. As a disinterested spectator, I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact
  774
  that the speech we have just heard lasted for 18 minutes and that there are many other hon. Members wishing to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not a point of order. Had the hon. Gentleman not raised a point of order which is not a point of order, I intended to draw the attention of the House to that very point. As this is a short debate, I hope that hon. Members will restrict themselves as far as they feel able to do so in the interests of their fellow Members.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. William Shelton: Hon. Members will agree that housing and homelessness problems in London cause more misery to our constituents than any other matter. Homelessness and housing problems probably cause hooliganism and delinquency, and many other social problems can be traced back to housing conditions.
  Logically, there are three ways of reducing the amount of homelessness : first, by building more houses ; secondly, by improving the houses we have ; thirdly, by persuading people to move out of London to new towns. I would add a fourth way, which is by giving more information on housing to people who live in London. I want to dwell specifically on this narrow issue of trying to relieve some of our housing problems by giving more information. I do so because the Borough of Lambeth, part of which I have the honour to represent, has an outstanding record in this direction. A Housing Advisory Centre was started in Lambeth in May of last year. It has just completed a year and an analysis of the results can now be made, so that we have an idea of how well it has worked.
  The total number of inquiries in the year was over 27,000, of which about 11,000 were in the first half and 16,000 in the second half. We can see that as the centre as become known more people have gone along to get advice. The daily average for the first six months was 86 people and for the second six months 125. The largest single group was seeking to get on the council's housing list. Some 2,000 inquiries were made about moving out of London, which I find encouraging. Nearly 3,000 inquiries were made about

  775
  the availability of council mortgages—which I am sure Members on both sides of the House will find encouraging. The number of mortgages taken up in 1969 was 24, and in 1970 it rose to 80. Although this is a quite small number, it is encouraging and must be a direct result of the good work of the Housing Advisory Centre.
  About 1,000 inquiries were made about improvement grants and a high proportion of those inquiries resulted in the provision of grants. If I tell the House that in 1969 some 210 improvement grants were approved, that in 1970 the figure rose to very nearly 400, and that in the first five months of 1971 the number of such grants almost equalled the number for the whole of 1970, it will be seen that the work of the Housing Advisory Centre is beginning to bear fruit.
  I believe I am right in saying that Lambeth is the first borough to form a link with a development area. A Peterborough Week was held in March and April this year and it was extremely successful. I should like to tell the House a great deal more about that experiment, but I will keep my remarks short since I know that many others wish to contribute to this debate. Suffice it to say that this experiment has already resulted in some removals from Lambeth to Peterborough.
  I conclude by saying that the action taken by the Borough of Lambeth in giving advice to people on how to set about solving their housing problems has been extremely successful. I know that other boroughs are undertaking similar work, and I hope that the Ministry will encourage these efforts in every way. Anything that can be done in this direction will be helpful in solving the problems of the homeless.
  5.52 p.m.
  Mr. John Fraser: As a Member of Parliament for Lambeth, I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton). However, I warn the Government Front Bench not to attach too much importance to the housing advisory centre since it will not make a major contribution to solving housing problems. What is happening in Lambeth is that the waiting list is being added to
  776
  that much more quickly because people have been to the advisory centre. Such a body may solve some part of the problem but is not a complete answer.
  We all have our own particular solutions for trying to solve the housing problem, and to some extent it has defied the initiative of both parties. It is true that rent control leads to less housing being available for letting, and also leads to more furnished accommodation. In some cases it has led to accommodation becoming more decrepit. Multi-occupation legislation, which has been helpful in some respects, leads to people being driven out of controlled areas into areas where there is no control. Falling population is at the same time linked to increased housing problems. This is a paradox in London which has defied both parties.
  There are one or two suggestions I should like to make which I hope will contribute to solving some of the problems of homelessness and bad housing. In my own borough are large blighted areas near the town centre. Some are in action areas but have not yet been dealt with under the London Development Plan. Therefore, people cannot sell their houses and are allowing them to deteriorate. These houses have too short a life to be improved by the local authority and tend to go over to furnished accommodation. Various Ministers have been to see some of these houses in my constituency, and the local authority ought to acquire many of those houses, even if it lets them as substandard houses, I would rather they were let as sub-standard to two families than as sub-standard to four families. Every encouragement must be given to local authorities to do this sort of thing in areas of blight by buying such properties from owner occupiers. If this is done more widely the problem may not be so bad as it is at present.
  The second matter that I wish to mention arises out of what I hear from people who attend my advice bureau. A young married couple go into furnished accommodation with one child, they soon find a second child on the way and it is even more difficult for them to seek unfurnished acommodation in which they can build their own home. A further complication is that the wife stops working and the financial situation

  777
  becomes worse. A third child is born and very often the woman undergoes treatment for mental stress. When finally a fourth child comes along there is a real dilemma for that family. I feel that some kind of domiciliary family planning service should be made available to such a family.
  The family would not have to take the advice it was given. I do not want to offend any religious feelings but I feel that any advice that could be given to help a young couple of the sort I have described would help to ease the situation. As more and more children come along the chances of finding unfurnished accommodation grow less and less. One feature that is graphically brought out by the Greve Report is the increase in the number of homeless families with four or more children.
  Another matter which is mentioned in the Greve Report—I mentioned this in our debate on 15th February—is the need for a central housing authority. Subsidies are not necessarily the answer. A feature of the London housing situation is that those authorities with the biggest deficit on revenue account and with the biggest housing stress are generally the authorities which do the most to build houses to help the homeless. The authorities which do not have deficits and have plenty of land and money to help are often those which tend to do least. Lambeth and Southwark have big deficits and yet they go on building. Places like Bexley, Sutton and Croydon do not have such deficits and they have not very large housing programmes.
  I feel that the answer is to have a central housing authority for the whole of London. It is a pity that my own Government when in office did not do anything about this matter. We sat on this question for far too long. Unless we treat the problem as a whole and, instead of having 32 fragmented areas, have one central directing body with a central strategy and with building powers we shall never solve the problem. We have to take people from Southwark to Bromley ; we must take people from Lambeth to Croydon ; we must take people from Camden to Sutton, and so forth. We must do all we can to ease the situation. Since the Greater London Council does not do the job, we need to set up a central authority.
  778
  A matter which was mentioned in a minority recommendation in the Francis Report and is also dealt with in the Greve Report is the necessity to give more security to furnished tenants. This is a dilemma, for there is a risk that if too much security is given the supply of furnished accommodation may dry up. However, it is a risk worth taking. People who let furnished accommodation will probably do so in any case, and it is the question of security with which we should be concerned.
  If such accommodation does dry up, the answer is public ownership. Let us not dodge this issue. Large areas of furnished accommodation are in twilight areas and are often owned by absentee landlords. I do not refer to the woman who lets a room furnished in her own house ; I refer to accommodation which is let as an investment. Such property is often controlled by absentee landlords, and where security is not being given to tenants in areas with housing problems I do not see why local authorities should not be forced to step in and requisition property and impose a fair rent system so that the property may be run in a proper way.
  This policy would help families to put together the nucleus of homes of their own. One difficulty experienced by people in furnished accommodation is that they never get together anything they can call their own. Many of these families are not fly-by-night, transient people. They are the permanent occupiers of large parts of London and are increasing in number. They must be given some underlying security and guarantee that they will pay only a fair rent for that property. Fair rent legislation for furnished tenants will not work so long as, automatically, they give themselves six months' notice to quit when they apply to a rent tribunal. It would be better to have a fair rent system, which in some cases would be fairer to landlords, coupled with security of tenure. Then we could begin to make inroads into the problem.
  The third point which I wish to raise is that we ought to accept the recommendation of the Greve Report that we need more houses in London. That can be done only by reverting to the question of a central housing authority and making sure that houses are built in those

  779
  areas which have plenty of land available or which at least have more opportunities for building than the inner London stress areas. This has to be done by direction. So far, encouragement by both parties has failed. Where it has failed, action must be taken.
  If that is not done, not only are we sacrificing people's housing chances ; we shall also destroy a generation. We shall destroy the opportunities that our good schools offer people. It is no use giving educational opportunities when there is social deprivation in our homes. There are many disappointments in the London education system. The reason is that no matter how good the educational opportunities are, with social and home deprivation of this kind, the opportunities cannot be realised.
  I hope that the Government will give more attention to the recommendations of the Greve and the other reports. Let us see strong action in favour of the homeless, not soon but now.
  6.3 p.m.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: It is a great pleasure to be called immediately following the speech of my neighbour, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser), and to follow up a number of the points he made.
  The subject that we are debating is a basic one for hon. Members on both sides, although our approaches may be different. As the hon. Gentleman said, we cannot improve education standards if children come from deprived homes, deprived not necessarily because of the families but because of the circumstances in which they are brought up, which make their lives intolerable and impossible.
  That is why we have to beware of the easy answer, because we so much want an easy answer. We should like to be able to say that all that one needs to do is to redefine what homelessness means or to say that there is a great deal of land available in some mystic place. But even with regard to land availability in certain Outer London boroughs, we know, for example, how much land the Land Commission found in Croydon. It found under 10 acres. It may not have looked very hard. It
  780
  may be that it got the figures wrong. That does not suggest that there is an enormous amount of land available. However, it indicates clearly that we should use what land there is as effectively and as quickly as possible.
  For that reason, I hope that one of our first actions will be to see that land becomes available very much faster than it does at the moment. There is a great deal of land in the pipeline which the Ministry could release much more quickly than it does at present. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to look at this point, as well as at the present allocations of density throughout London. In many areas, reallocations could be made.
  In addition, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider the arrangements under which demolition takes place today. It is quite wrong that someone should be able to pull down a house in London without any by-your-leave except for 12 or 14 days' notice pinned to his neighbour's door. Such an arrangement is unacceptable in a situation where, very often, after he has pulled down the house, he gets planning permission for a commercial development that he would have been refused had he sought it while the house was standing.
  Hon. Members on both sides of the House must try to get away from the argument which makes hon. Members on this side talk about private development and hon. Members opposite talk about public development. The need in London is for more houses, provided by private developers, in the public sector, and in the in-between area of housing associations.
  If we are to tackle the problem realistically, we have to ask ourselves whether the present situation, in which we sterilise large numbers of homes because at the moment they are council houses and have council tenants, is the answer to the problem of those who are most in need. I wonder whether we should not look at the possibility of arranging our affairs in London so that the council house building programme becomes a dynamic rather than the static management arrangement that it is so often. Too many councils are largely concerned with managing the homes that they have already. Often there are people living in them who, given the right opportunities,

  781
  perhaps would wish to find accommodation that they owned. The answer might be for them to buy the houses which they occupy now, or to buy other houses built by private developers. If we have not enough homes for people to buy and we continue forcing up the cost of homes in London by artificially restricting the number built, it is difficult to see how we can solve the problem. I should like us to look again at the holding of council houses with a view to seeing whether we cannot meet the real need. Is it right for people today to be badly housed for a whole generation, while others hold on to accommodation which they have grown out of, with three or four-bedroom houses which they no longer fully occupy?
  If that is true in the public sector, it is also true in the private sector. That is why I support the recommendations of the Francis Committee. It is a little odd that the hon. Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) should have referred to practically every report on the subject except the Francis Report. He did not refer to it, of course, because it was not convenient. It did not fit in with his argument. I hope that we shall consider all these reports together and not be selective because certain of them fit in with our prejudged political arguments.
  If the Francis Report is to mean anything, we have to encourage widows and others who have unwanted accommodation and would like to let part of it by providing the means for them to do it without involving themselves in a situation which makes it impossible for them to live reasonable lives should they find their tenants unsatisfactory.
  We in London shall not solve the housing problem by belly-aching about hon. Members on one side building too many council houses and hon. Members on the other side building only private houses. In London we have to see that we build as many houses as we can as rapidly as possible. Having done so, we must give the people of London the opportunity of knowing where those houses are, and we must provide them with the opportunity to buy, if possible, and to rent fairly, if necessary. We must not be content with a situation in which large areas are sterilised and people who desperately need homes are deprived. Our answer
  782
  in London is to provide more homes in every sector.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. John D. Grant: I begin by taking up the point made by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer), who referred to the social deprivation caused by bad housing conditions. We are talking about a crisis in housing. It is a long-standing one, but a crisis none the less. Decent housing will do more than anything else ultimately to achieve the reduction in spending on the social services which the Government are so anxious to make.
  If we had decent housing, it would help alleviate the problems of crime and delinquency, those of wrecked marriages and ill-health, and probably the prejudices which are aroused by the inequalities caused by bad housing conditions. It would be interesting to know, for example, how many of the man-hours and how much of the productivity lost can be traced back to the root cause of bad housing.
  The plain fact is that we do not spend enough of our gross national product on housing. In this respect we compare badly with other countries. I think it would be very much in line with the Government's "one nation" theme to free us from the kind of injustices which we have heard described in the debate.
  I cannot accept the Government's line about subsidies only for those in need as the way to keep down our overall expenditure on housing. That seems to be the message of the White Paper which will be discussed next week. If the Government want to provide decent homes for all those in need at a price which they can afford, they cannot contemplate cutting back on the overall figure of expenditure for housing. We must spend more. It is no answer to say that we cannot afford it. I do not believe that we can afford not to do it.
  The Minister said that the Inner London boroughs should gain considerably from the new subsidies for slum clearance. I hope that that will prove to be the case. We shall see. But the vast majority of council house tenants, certainly in my constituency, will face rocketing rent rises as a result of the policies which the Government are anxious to pursue. I think that is the

  783
  path to further inflation, which they have pledged to curb. I share the view that cash aid through subsidies alone cannot solve the problems of the Inner London boroughs.
  I should like to give one or two examples of overcrowding. The Greve Report referred to Islington as having the highest proportion of families in London in shared accommodatoin—57·4 per cent. I regard it as a scandal and an indictment of this nation and of Governments past and present that that situation should still be prevalent in 1971.
  A recent survey in North-East Islington, which took in part of my constituency, Highbury, has been published by Shelter. It was the work of one of the local community workers. That survey showed that only 43 per cent. of the households surveyed had their own hot water and only 18 per cent. had an inside lavatory. That, again, helps to illustrate the gravity and seriousness of the problem in that part of London. I do not believe that any solution or, at best, only a partial solution, is to be found within the framework of the White Paper, whatever it may say about subsidies for slum clearance and for council and private tenants.
  We come back to the problem of the chronic shortage and price of land, which was particularly stressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser). In passing, I should like to mention a subject which I hope that the Minister will take up in his reply. My borough council is gravely concerned about the current handicap of the building cost yardstick because it believes that it is impeding its own housing efforts.
  I should also like to mention the series which has been running in the Evening News called "Heartbreak Homes". It has been an excellent series based on Pimlico, but I have a similar problem currently obtaining in Canonbury where long-established tenants are under considerable pressure to quit their homes which are then sold at inflated prices or let at much higher rents. Either way, the tenants who will occupy those properties will not be from the low-income groups in the borough ; they will be people coming in from outside who are able and willing to pay the kind of profits which landlords
  784
  and private developers are seeking. The lower-income group tenants in that area who might otherwise qualify for the Government's new rebate scheme will not get a sniff at it. I hope that the Minister will bear that point in mind. These landlords may not be in breach of the law, but they are doing nothing to ease the pressure on housing in my borough.
  The Greve Report pointed out that there was no coherence in London housing. It mentioned that homelessness in Inner London was up by 156 per cent. in eight years and that the Inner London problem was utterly out of line with anything happening throughout the rest of Britain.
  I come back to the suggestion in the Greve Report of a central housing agency, which many hon. Members have supported. I think that is right. The Minister should set up such a body without further delay and give it powers to direct specific local authorities to build in certain areas—particularly outer London areas. I make no bones about it. I believe that encouragement has manifestly failed over a long period. Therefore, we must have compulsory methods to get the Outer London boroughs to accept their proper share of responsibility for London's housing problems.
  The Prime Minister had a great deal to say before the General Election about "one nation". I take it that that included housing. I have not heard him say very much, if anything, about housing since the election. That may be because he represents an Outer London, not an Inner London, borough. If he really wants to get to grips with this problem and achieve one nation, he might make a start by making one nation out of both Inner and Outer London.
  6.16 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: I should like to take up the point about the series in the Evening News entitled "Heartbreak Homes" which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant). It is no part of an M.P.'s job to pillory innocent people, to presume that people are guilty until they are proved innocent, or anything of that nature. The Evening News has made some serious allegations about my constituency and has named two companies,

  785
  Central Estates (Belgravia) Limited and John Haskins & Co. We in Westminster are awaiting an answer from those companies justifying the activities which have been reported in the Evening News or pointing out in what regard that newspaper has been mistaken. As of now, we are deeply concerned about the allegations which have been made because they show how, apparently within the law, it is often possible for unscrupulous landlords to harass and pursue poor, low-income tenants so that they have to leave their homes and cannot take advantage of their legal rights.
  I was much encouraged by an answer which I received from the Minister for Housing and Construction, who drew attention to the fact that if tenants are put under pressure by the use of fictitious schedules of dilapidations, the question of prosecution under the Theft Act, 1968, might properly be referred to the appropriate authority. This was a matter of which most people were unaware. I should like to know whether it is the responsibility of individuals who feel that they are the subject of fictitious schedules of dilapidations to bring the prosecutions or whether, when evidence is put before the Minister, the Director of Public Prosecutions is responsible for bringing these prosecutions. I should also like to know whether the Government can do more to keep tenants, especially poorer tenants, informed about their rights so that when they are faced with these frightening legal letters by people with strings of initials after their names calling on solicitors and so on they are able to seek advice without having to fork out large sums in legal fees.
  Apart from the terrible things about which I have been speaking, Westminster has some of the best landlords in the country. It has firms with a high sense of social responsibility which have done a great deal to make our capital the beautiful and prosperous place that it is. I know from my correspondence that the majority of landlords and agents deeply deplore activities such as those reported in the Evening News. They realise that great harm is being done to their profession by an unscrupulous minority which is causing hardship. I should like to know what more can be done for those in our society who most need protection.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: It is very pleasant, in the first debate in which both the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Selwyn Gummer) and I have intervened, to find ourselves in such a large measure of agreement, although there are one or two points on the Francis Committee on which I do not think I can follow him.
  In opening the debate the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps speaking from the advantage of Brighton Pavilion, apart from a few light-hearted party quips, spoke in philosophical vein and talked about the intractable nature of the problem. I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman entirely in his homespun philosophy. He is paid to make the problem tractable, and if we go forward on that basis we shall have a much happier time during the next couple of years than if we talk too much about intractability.
  I should like the Government to reconsider the minority report of the Francis Committee. Particularly when it comes to the protection of furnished dwellings, Miss Lyndal Evans has been somewhat maligned in the general and popularised discussion of the report. It has been said that she just wants rent control and security of tenure for furnished premises. That is not entirely true. If that were to happen, there would be a reduction in the number of furnished premises available, because a number of people who let off a portion of their homes as furnished dwellings would withdraw them from the market.
  Miss Evans wants security of tenure for tenants living in large blocks commercially let off as furnished premises. I do not think that if those were controlled there would be a reduction, because the landlords have purchased those properties with a view to putting them on the market and getting rents for them as furnished premises. If they do not let them in that way there is no alternative use for them. They would therefore accept security of tenure and press ahead.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would the hon. Gentleman perhaps confirm that that sort of furnished property is becoming prevalent in Inner London, particularly in my constituency, where large blocks of mansion flats are being

  787
  let continually on short lease of three months, one month, a week, or even a day, and thus moving towards becoming hotels? Would the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed is not so much control as a change in the terms of leases so that the problem can be dealt with?
  Mr. Moyle: I do not have time to go into that, but they would probably be kept as furnished tenancies in one form or another for the occupant, and some control has to be exercised.
  I now propose to say something about the problems of an Inner London borough such as Lewisham, part of which I represent, and perhaps explain what a borough housing problem means. We have 7,000 families on the waiting list in Lewisham, 4,000 of whom have some degree of urgency. I should be one of the first to say that the solution of the problem in the London boroughs does not lie in terms of finance and subsidy, but the fact is that if we do not get the money we shall not solve the problem.
  We are now rebuilding houses at the rate of about 1,200 a year, and it looks as though we shall keep up that pace, because we are more or less rebuilding Deptford. Although we are doing that, and although the subsidy from the Exchequer is estimated to be about £1,300,000, we shall have a deficit on our housing account of about £1,400,000. There are three-bedroomed houses in Lewisham to let at rents of £8·50 a week, which is a fantastically high rent. I have not had a chance to work out what the subsidies under the White Paper mean for the borough, but it seems that about £3 million a year will be required if we are to press ahead with the redevelopment of Deptford at the pace that we hope to do it.
  Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for introducing the London Government Act, 1963. They were responsible for stopping the G.L.C. being a housing authority. They have to put something in its place because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) said, we must have an area housing authority, or an area housing policy. Conferences of London boroughs will not do any good. To put it crudely and bluntly, we must have Government action. What we in
  788
  Lewisham want is to be able to get our hands on the sylvan glades of Bexley, Bromley, Beckenham, Croydon and places like that and to get our surplus population in the north of Lewisham and Deptford into those areas.
  If there is difficulty in finding land, there is a simple solution. I am not talking about suburban areas that are conservation areas. In those areas that I have mentioned there are large houses with large back gardens. They could be compulsorily purchased, knocked down and developed at a fantastically high density compared with what they are now. That sort of determined effort must be made if we are to solve the housing problems of places like Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Scott: I do not have time to follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) in some of the points that he made. I shall confine myself to three specific issues.
  I maintain that if we are to have a decent quality of life in Central London it must be possible for a balanced community to go on living there. I put a slightly different emphasis on the issue from that put on it by my right hon. Friend. I maintain that we cannot regard Inner and Outer London as one, with total flexibility within it because, if there were an exodus from Central London of skilled workers to the new towns, and of middle-income groups to the suburbs, we would be left in Central London with waiters and stockbrokers. That would lead not to a balanced community, but to social conflict and the development of a class situation which would be extremely unhealthy. We have to make a conscious effort, through policies laid down by the central Government, and by local government, to ensure that that does not happen.
  I agree that we cannot solve London's housing problems simply by subsidy arrangements, however good they may be. For years we have been subsidising units of accommodation and controlling rents, but the situation has got worse. Nor do I believe that a free market in housing in Central London would solve the problem in a million years. There must be a new strategy for housing in Central London.

  789
  In particular, I am worried about the way that we have squeezed unfurnished accommodation until, to all intents and purposes, it does not exist in my constituency. If we were to put in security of tenure for furnished accommodation we would be in danger of squeezing that, too. Already the supply of furnished accommodation in my constituency is being squeezed, and being squeezed most of all by the process mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) ; namely, the extension of hotels. This is frequently done by a creeping and gradual process under which furnished accommodation becomes short-stay accommodation, then becomes nightly furnished accommodation, then becomes an annexe to an hotel, and eventually is incorporated into the hotel, sometimes with no planning consent being obtained. I know that the Westminster City Council is aware of this problem and is trying to cope with it, but we all have to be aware of it.
  Why do we not seek to divert more of our resources into houses in the city? I know that this is part of the aim of the White Paper, but it will fail in central London because we do not have unfurnished accommodation. The reason for that is that we concentrate so much on the furnished sector. Why not look again at the possibility of giving people prepared to invest in the provision of unfurnished accommodation a depreciation allowance on their investment, provided that they are prepared to conform to certain management standards with their property and adopt rent policies which follow a code of practice that has been set down by the central Government? In that way we could get extra resources into extra unfurnished accommodation in our city centres, and that would be a great step forward.
  When property comes on the market, housing associations are at a disadvantage because they can buy only at the valuation of the local authority. A private landlord can afford to pay more because of the improvement in value that is likely to come over the next two or three years. As the chairman of a voluntary housing association, I continually find that we are 5 per cent. or 6 per cent. below the price that the private landlord is able to pay. The local authority is not allowed to make up that difference
  790
  to us so that we can obtain the accommodation and use it to cope with the homeless in our area.
  One point that has not been mentioned—it may be that it is special to Paddington and St. Marylebone—is that of the homeless young. I am referring to the groups of young people who come into London from outside, or come into a family conflict situation, and sleep rough in cafes, travelling the tubes at night. Sooner or later, we shall have to encourage local authorities to provide more hostel accommodation for these young people. Otherwise, we shall be building up a real social problem for ourselves in the years ahead.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Brown: The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) spoke a great deal of good sense about furnished properties becoming hotels. My constituency is not far from his and suffers the same problem. But he should be careful about arguing the case from the point at which he left it. Some control of furnished premises would make it more difficult to get tenants out and hand the premises over to hotels. We cannot take the argument too far tonight, but perhaps he should re-examine it and see whether he is not nearer to our position than he thinks.
  To have only two and a half hours for a debate like this is most unsatisfactory. I suppose that this is the first time that two former leaders of local authorities in Inner London and two hon. Members who were housing chairmen at exactly the same time 15 years ago are presenting the case on London housing.
  We are not very satisfied with the Government's attitude. The Minister did not think they did too badly in their 13 years. But I am interested in the four boroughs that he chooses as examples of the period 1965–71. Southwark is always chosen. I served on that authority, and I used to draw the facts to the attention of his right hon. Friend.
  The Minister was not correct when he said that Southwark cut back on housing starts. It was developing a programme of 2,000 completions over five years, and at present it has 5,500 houses under construction. Over the five-year period it did not cut back but was assembling the land.

  791
  It housed 4,500 families last year. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to repeat this point, which is not true.
  I have many reservations about committees and working parties. The Minister referred to the First Report of the Joint Working Party, which contains the following passage in paragraph 32:
  "We have so far concluded that families without roofs must be secured accommodation if they do not for any reason have it and that, subject to professional decisions about the desirability of receiving children into care and to the condition that 'secure' does not always mean 'provide', the accommodation should be a family dwelling."
  I do not know what that means. A joint working party should not talk mumbo-jumbo like that. I know many of the people serving on it and I find it extraordinary that they should make that sort of parlous comment, which means virtually nothing.
  I urge the Minister not to rely too much on that information. He will recall how we started, in London particularly. The 1957 Rent Act was the beginning of the problems of London. It was argued that it would solve all the housing problems. Lord Brooke argued forcefully that it was the panacea, that once we decontrolled and landlords were able and willing to provide more accommodation at reasonable rents, local authorities would need to be only the supporting bodies.
  The subsidies were reduced to zero. The only subsidies given were for slum clearance. My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson) and I argued what was happening in London, but the Minister refused to listen. We kept chasing the present Secretary of State for Social Services all those years, but the Conservative Government refused to listen.
  The Conservative Government set us the Milner Holland Committee in 1964, we gave evidence to it, and we were present when the report came before the House. These facts live in the memories of people who have been hurt in London by the policy that the Conservatives pursued. We can set up Cullingworth, Francis, Greve and other Committees but at the end of the day they all come to the same conclusion—that we must build more homes. Every hon. Member has made exactly the same point. I do not
  792
  know how many more committees we shall need to tell us that. Build more houses is precisely what we have not done.
  The right hon. Gentleman nodded sagely just now, so I suppose he agrees that we must build more homes. At a Press conference recently he spoke for what amounted to 12 column inches about private home building and right at the end added the six words :
  "Council house building, however, remains static."
  This is deplorable, and shows what we are complaining about. This is the sort of priority that the Minister gives, and it is causing us a great deal of concern.
  I urge the right hon. Gentleman to try to do something about this, and to understand that if one is to build more homes one has to do much more than the Government are doing.
  Mr. Amery: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent me. I was not advocating that it should remain static. I was giving a progress report to the private house builders about the progress in the private sector. I had to report that the public sector was not doing so well.
  Mr. Brown: I appreciate that. I am not being unkind to the Minister, but this seems to be his feeling. If I had been giving that Press conference I would have said, "It is a damned disgrace that we have not built more council houses". But after 12 column inches all he could report was no progress.
  Without a substantial programme, the right hon. Gentleman will not solve the problem. In paragraphs 125 to 131, Cullingworth argued cogently that the housing stock of the G.L.C. should not be handed over to the boroughs. The Cullingworth Report was not published until just after the election. After all those comments in favour of no transfer, Cullingworth suddenly said that, provided that the Government were prepared to take action to bring together the G.L.C., the working party and the London Boroughs Association, it would be possible to go ahead with phase 2 of the transfer.
  There is no secret that I objected—I said that the transfers were wrong at the time, and I still take the same view—but the Government did not wait to do

  793
  what Cullingworth suggested they might do first. They went haring off to produce their Orders and present them to the House without even having the courtesy to give us a chance to discuss the matter. On such an occasion, they could have argued the case and explained why they were so hastily going ahead with the transfers, although Cullingworth had made clear that, in his view, they ought not to do that but should be far more careful, able and willing to discuss the subject in greater detail in order to set up a structure which would be able to co-ordinate housing in London to achieve the purpose about which we are all concerned ; that is, the provision of more homes.
  I ask the Minister to reread Cullingworth and pay particular attention to what he says in those paragraphs. The result of the Government's hasty action has been clear. He must now take it all back again because the financial arrangements come to at the time—I have always regarded them as bad—will now be put back in the melting pot as from 1st April, 1972, if the White Paper is accepted as the basis for legislation. The whole purpose of the White Paper upsets all those arrangements for transfer of those 46,000 properties. At the end of the day the Government's rush did not give any help to London. All the officers and authorities are busy trying to assimilate the properties and the tenants as well as trying to assimilate the staffs transferred, instead of paying attention to the building of more homes.
  I urge the Minister strongly to examine his attitude on the transfer of the G.L.C., properties. I do not believe that he can show any evidence that it has in any way helped London's housing situation.
  The attitude of the Greater London Council generally needs to be examined, also. It made some extraordinary comments on Greve. On the question of eviction by landlords, its comment was :
  "But it must not be assumed that in all cases the landlord is acting unreasonably."
  As a comment by a local authority, that is a pretty poor effort. It is not exactly coming out with something new. On the question of eviction by parents, it made the comment :
  "This is by no means uncommon."
  794
  Really, the G.L.C. is not addressing itself to the problem.
  Above all, the G.L.C. should be considering action to be taken to strengthen the position of tenants in furnished accommodation. If one could do that, one would eliminate some of the homeless family problems. It should examine, also, the question of action taken under various Acts of Parliament. For example, if a local authority takes action about a fire risk, if it takes action in terms of a direct management order or under the heading of multi-occupation, almost inevitably the owners will threaten to turn the tenants out. Thus, even though one tries to introduce management orders, the result in many cases is an addition to the homeless family problem rather than a move towards a solution of the housing problem.
  London suffered badly from 1968 to 1970. There was complete Tory control. This has now ended. Instead of land being sold off, as happened in Islington, Hackney, Brent and elsewhere, we now have 22 Labour-controlled authorities willing and anxious to get to work. All they ask from the Government is money.
  They want help to get the land from the outer areas, and help to do the job of providing more homes. Let us stop pontificating. We are talking about people now, about human situations and human problems, not statistics. Let us make sure that by straight Government action urgently taken we make life brighter for the people of London.
  6.44 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): With the last words of the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) a lot of us will agree. We are dealing here with people, and, perhaps, we have not heard quite enough about people today. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) took my right hon. Friend to task for saying that this is one of the greatest intractable problems which we have. I do not agree. I think that it is one of the most intractable problems facing us. It is an appallingly difficult problem, a problem which has so far managed to defeat successive Governments and successive local authorities, and anyone who argues to the contrary is misguided.

  795
  I first became really interested in housing—I expect that this is true of many other hon Members who have not been closely concerned with housing for as long as the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and Finsbury and his hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson)—when I saw the film "Cathy Come Home".
  Mr. John Fraser: As recently as that?
  Mr. Channon: I am a great deal younger than the hon. Gentleman. [Laughter.] That was the first time I started taking a really detailed interest in the subject. I think that is probably true of the country as a whole. [Interruption.] It may be reprehensible, but it is true. I think it is true because that film showed how the homeless were facing really ghastly problems. That is what this debate is about, the sad cases which we have had described so often by people both inside the House and outside over the past few years.
  In the short time available, I shall do my best to answer the points which have been raised. I cannot answer them all, and, should hon. Members feel that I have not dealt with the matters which they have raised, if they will get in touch with me I shall try to give detailed answers later.
  First, I take the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) about bogus schedules of dilapidation. This is already an offence under the criminal law. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should advise people to take legal advice where they can or go to advice centres to seek advice on these problems. Having taken advice, they should then tell the local authority what the situation is. In suitable cases, the local authority may refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who may then take action.
  I can tell my hon. Friend—I congratulate him on his diligence in pursuing the matter—that we are having new leaflets prepared describing people's rights in such circumstances. They will shortly be available, and if any local authority wishes to have some for distribution in its area, we shall be delighted to arrange it. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make certain that Westminster takes up that offer at the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the leaflet covers the scandal of deferred purchase, which is affecting a large number of people, particularly in my constituency?
  Mr. Channon: I shall consider that point, but I regard it as urgent to prepare and send out the leaflets which I have described, and I should not wish to delay that process in order to put in anything else, no matter how important. If the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) would like some of the leaflets, he should get in touch with my right hon. Friend's Department, and we shall be glad to supply them.
  I agree very much with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham (Mr. William Shelton) and the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) about the work of the Lambeth Housing Aid Centre and the problems which it has solved. We must not overestimate what it is able to do, but I know that it has made a great deal of difference.
  As hon. Members on both sides have said, what we have to do in trying to help in London's housing problems is to deal with the problem of money and the problem of land. Those are the two main factors. As one hon. Member said, we have a paradox in London. There is a declining population. Between 1951 and 1961 it fell from 8·2 million to about 8 million ; it is now down a further 100,000 or so, and it may be down another 500,000 by 1981. But, with the change in household size, the pressures on Inner London are still very great.
  Homelessness is inevitably the worst feature of housing pressure in a situation such as this. I wish we had a chance—we could have had it in a debate such as this—to discuss this great social problem dispassionately and reasonably. I regret that we have had to discuss it today on a partisan Motion, a Motion which I utterly reject for its allegation that the Government have been responsible for delay in dealing with the problem.
  The Report of the Standing Working Party came out in July last year, shortly after we took office. It pointed to the problem of a crude housing shortage of 100,000 dwellings and a total of 230,000 unsatisfactory dwellings. Professor Greve says that there are statistical flaws in

  797
  that argument, and that it is wrong. Whoever is right, we can all agree that it is a serious situation.
  As soon as the report was received, my right hon. Friend the then Minister asked all the London boroughs to have a vigorous building programme. He impressed upon outer London the need to help and impressed upon the boroughs the need for improvement and for further housing advisory centres. My right hon. Friends have met the London boroughs and the G.L.C. I spend a large part of my time meeting the London boroughs, discussing their problems and urging them to go on with greater building programmes of all kinds, public or private.
  My right hon. Friend has discussed with the boroughs the setting up of housing aid centres and the establisment of tenancy relations officers to help in the areas of stress. I hope that the boroughs will carry out the suggestions. Many of them are considering both recommendations. There are already at least three housing aid centres in London, and I hope that there will be many more. I understand that a further seven boroughs have decided to go ahead with them.
  We are to have a further conference in September. I agree that conferences are no excuse for inaction, but they can help. People can come to understand each others' problems and we can discuss them and put forward proposals. Those present can consider them and make a positive contribution.
  I was sorry that the hon. Member for Willesden, East raised the hoary old controversy about the publication of Professor Greve's Report [Interruption.] In that case, he raised the question of delay. I do not believe that any other hon. Member has followed him on that point, and it is not worth wasting time dealing with the matter. I have set out the position in full far too often.
  It is very strange that the whole matter was arranged as it was in the first place, and I regret it. We have done what we can to press ahead. I am very sorry that in spite of the fact that we sent comments to Professor Greve in August the report did not come out until May. That is not our fault. In the interim, we have taken continual action on the problem of London housing. The working party
  798
  was set up. Of course, it had to wait for the final version of Professor Greve's Report, because the figures were completely different. No one had any idea whether Profesor Greve would change his mind about any of the points. He was sent 12 pages of closely-argued evidence which he presumably thought was important, for it took him five months to reply. Therefore, we cannot be criticised for waiting a further few weeks before the working party was set up.
  Mr. Freeson: Is it not a fact that the main part of that so-called evidence was a presentation of the statistical information based on the Standing Working Party's report, and that no changes were made in the recommendations arising from the original report presented last June.
  Mr. Channon: That may well be so, but, then, it is astonishing that he took five months to answer.
  The first report from the working party set up by my right hon. Friend dealt with the nature and prevention of homeless-ness. It made changes in the definition of homelesssness, and it dealt with homeless families with children as the first priority. However, single people are extremely important, too, and they will be considered in the next report, which I hope will be soon.
  The report states that an over-riding housing obligation is for local authorities to accommodate as a priority those families who seem certain to lose their home and those where there is serious risk of imminent family break-down as a result of housing need and social stress. That follows closely the recommendations of the Council for Social Services, which can be found in Professor Greve's Report as well.
  There was no coherent definition of homelessness before. The definition given is one that I hope the London boroughs will accept. I also hope that they will soon reply to the suggestions made in the working party's report. I think that they are sensible suggestions. I hope and believe that the boroughs will think so too, and that we shall have a chance to discuss them with the boroughs.

  799
  The solution to the problem lies in dealing with the London housing problem itself. Housing starts in London for the first five months of this year rose from under 12,000 to nearly 16,000. The number of completions so far this year also shows a small increase on the corresponding figures for last year. The number of local authority tender approvals last year was under 20,000, and I am glad to say that there seems a good chance that this will increase this year as well. In 1970 the total rate of slum clearance was 5,500. In the last quarter of 1970 it was 1,445 compared with the figure of 1,200 for the comparable quarter of 1969. In the first quarter of this year that figure rose to 2,288.
  The House will have the opportunity to debate in greater detail on Monday the reform of housing finance.
  The problems of slum clearance are crucial in London, but the real problems are obsolescence, sub-standard houses and the sheer lack of houses. For sub-standard houses in 1968 the improvement figures were 9,000. They rose to 17,000 in 1970. We intend shortly to mount the largest improvement campaign in the world in London. I hope that everyone concerned will join in making it an outstanding success.
  The Government's proposals for the reform of housing finance provide for a rising costs subsidy which will meet about 75 per cent. of the costs to local authorities incurred when their housing costs rise faster than their rent income. In addition—and this will be of particular value to London—the provisions provide for an operational deficit subsidy which, broadly speaking, will relieve local authorities of half their rate-borne deficit now arising on their housing revenue account. A borough obliged to make a rate fund contribution of 20p in the pound in 1971–72 might well be able to reduce that contribution to a little more than 10p in the pound for 1972–73, while continuing to go full speed ahead in its building programme. Such a reduction might relieve the burden on the ratepayers of such a borough by £1 million or more. That is the proof of what we have always said, that we intend to help the areas and people in greatest need.
  800
  For the first time there are 750,000 people in London living in private unfurnished accommodation who, because of our rent allowance scheme, will have no need to fear eviction if they cannot afford the rents.
  The working party made recommendations for improving the early warning scheme for local authorities to learn when people are in danger of eviction.
  All these are constructive steps that the Government have taken in the comparatively short time we have been in office.
  We are debating a tragic problem. The Opposition have approached it in an unconstructive way with their Motion. From the way they talked, one might imagine that the Greve Report deal with conditions while we were in power. It deals with conditions when the Labour Party was in power throughout London. It is an indictment of the policies of six years of Labour rule in London. Labour hon. Members should be hanging their heads in shame. The London Labour Party controlled London for 30 years, and the citizens of London should regret it. We have shown that we will tackle the problem energetically. [Laughter.] Laugh this off—the starts in London are up, completions are up, slum clearance is up, improvement grants are up and tender approvals are up, and the housing finance reform relieves the burdens on the needy.
  The Motion reveals cynical political opportunism, preying on the misfortunes of a minority of people in London. The Labour Party had no real concern for them when they were in power. The hon. Member for Willesden, East was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman personally had concern. I withdraw that allegation from him at once. But he had his opportunity when in power to put forward the ideas he put forward so glibly this afternoon. The Opposition did not act when they were in power, and now they are resorting to carping criticism of a Government determined to act and help solve the problem.
  I ask my hon. Friends to reject with contumely and contempt the Motion put forward with such cynicism by the Opposition.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made :—
  The House divided : Ayes 301, Noes 267.

  Division No. 431.]

  AYES

  [7.0 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Emery, Peter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Farr, John

  Kirk, Peter

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fell, Anthony

  Knox, David

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Lambton, Antony

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Fidler, Michael

  Lane, David

  Astor, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Awdry, Daniel

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Fortescue, Tim

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Foster, Sir John

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

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Fowler, Norman

  Longden, Gilbert

  Batsford, Brian

  Fox, Marcus

  Loveridge, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Luce, R. N.

  Bell, Ronald

  Fry, Peter

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  MacArthur, Ian

  Benyon, W.

  Gardner, Edward

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  McLaren, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Blaker, Peter

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Body, Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maddan, Martin

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Gorst, John

  Madel, David

  Bowden, Andrew

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Marten, Neil

  Braine, Bernard

  Gray, Hamish

  Mather, Carol

  Bray, Ronald

  Green, Alan

  Maude, Angus

  Brewis, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Mawby, Ray

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Grylls, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gurden, Harold

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Buck, Antony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Bullus Sir Eric

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Moate, Roger

  Burden F. A.

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Molyneaux, James

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Money, Ernle

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

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Carlisle, Mark

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Monro, Hector

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Hastings, Stephen

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Channon, Paul

  Havers, Michael

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Chapman, Sydney

  Hawkins, Paul

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Hay, John

  Mudd, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murton, Oscar

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hicks, Robert

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Clegg, Walter

  Hlggins, Terence L.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hiley, Joseph

  Normanton, Tom

  Cooke, Robert

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

  Nott, John

  Coombs, Derek

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Cooper, A. E.

  Holland, Philip

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Cordle, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Osborn, John

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hordern, Peter

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Hornby, Richard

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Critchley, Julian

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Peel, John

  Crouch, David

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Percival, Ian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Curran, Charles

  Hunt, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pink, R. Bonner

  d'Avigdor-Gotdsmid, Sir Henry

  Iremnonger, T. L.

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Dean, Paul

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Dixon, Piers

  Jessel, Toby

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Jones, Arthur (Northants S.)

  Raison, Timothy

  Jopling, Michael

  Rawilinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Redmond, Robert

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Eden, Sir John

  Kilfedder, James

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rees-Davies, w. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Stokes, John

  Wall, Patrick

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Walters, Dennis

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Sutcliffe, John

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Warren, Kenneth

  Rost, Peter

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wealtherill, Bernard

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Sharples, Richard

  Temple, John M.

  Wilkinson, John

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

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Simeons, Charles

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

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tilney, John

  Worsley, Marcus

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

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Soref, Harold

  Trew, Peter

  Younger, Hn. George

  Speed, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Spence, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Sproat, lain

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

  Stainton, Keith

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Albu, Austen

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Horam, John

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Deakins, Eric

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Allen, Scholefield

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Delargy, H. J.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Ashley, Jack

  Dempsey, James

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ashton, Joe

  Doig, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Atkinson, Norman

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hunter, Adam

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

  Barnes, Michael

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Janner, Greville

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Driberg, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Barnett, Joel

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Dunn, James A.

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgton)

  Dunnett, Jack

  John, Brynmor

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Eadie, Alex

  Johnson Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Edelman, Maurice

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

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones Barry (Flint, E)

  Booth, Albert

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  English, Michael

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

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Evans, Fred

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Bradley, Tom

  Faulds, Andrew

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Judd, Frank

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

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

  Kaufman, Gerald

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Kelley, Richard

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kerr, Russell

  Kinnock Neil

  Buchan, Norman

  Foley, Maurice

  Lambie, David

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

  Foot, Michael

  Lamond, James

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Ford, Ben

  Latham, Arthur

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Forrester, John

  Lawson, George

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Cant, R. B.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Leonard, Dick

  Carmichael, Neil

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Garrett, W. E.

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Ginsburg, David

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Golding, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Cohen, Stanley

  Gourlay, Harry

  Loughlin, Charles

  Concannon, J. D.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  McBride, Neil

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  McCann, John

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Cronin, John

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  McElhone, Frank

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McGuire, Michael

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

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

  Hardy, Peter

  Mackie, John

  Dalyell, Tam

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Hattersley, Roy

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  804

  805

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Strang, Gavin

  Marquand, David

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Marsden, F.

  Prescott, John

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Taverne, Dick

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Rankin, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Meacher, Michael

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

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

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds S.)

  Tinn, James

  Mendelson, John

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Tomney, Frank

  Mikardo, Ian

  Richard, Ivor

  Torney, Tom

  Millan, Bruce

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Tuck, Raphael

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Varley, Eric G.

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Molloy, William

  Roper, John

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

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Rose, Paul B.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Watkins, David

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Sandelson, Neville

  Weitzman, David

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Moyle, Roland

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

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

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)

  Murray, Ronald King

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

  Whitehead, Philip

  Ogden, Eric

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Whitlock, William

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  O'Malley, Brian

  Sillars, James

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Oram, Bert

  Silverman, Julius

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Small, William

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Padley, Walter

  Spearing, Nigel

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woof, Robert

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Stallard, A. W,

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Steel, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Pendry, Tom

  Main Question, as amended, put :—
  The House divided : Ayes 302, Noes 268.

  Division No. 432.]

  AYES

  [7.10 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

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

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fidler, Michael

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

  Channon, Paul

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Astor, John

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Fortescue, Tim

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Foster, Sir John

  Awdry, Daniel

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Fowler, Norman

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Fox, Marcus

  Baker, w. H. K. (Banff)

  Clegg, Walter

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

  Balniel, Lord

  Cockeram, Eric

  Fry, Peter

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Cooke, Robert

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Batsford, Brian

  Coombs, Derek

  Gardner, Edward

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Bell, Ronald

  Cordle, John

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Benyon, W.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Biffen, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Crouch, David

  Gorst, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Crowder, F. P.

  Gower, Raymond

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Curran, Charles

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Body, Richard

  Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

  Gray, Hamish

  Boscawen, Robert

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Green, Alan

  Bossom, Sir Clive

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

  Grieve, Percy

  Bowden, Andrew

  Dean, Paul

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Deedes, Rt. Hon. W. F.

  Grylls, Michael

  Braine, Bernard

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Bray, Ronald

  Dixon, Piers

  Gurden, Harold

  Brewis, John

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  du Cann, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Eden, Sir John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Bryan, Paul

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

  Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Buck, Antony

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

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Emery, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Burden, F. A.

  Farr, John

  Havers, Michael

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Fell, Anthony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Hay, John

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Mawby, Ray

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Simeons, Charles

  Hicks, Robert

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

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

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

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

  Soref, Harold

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Speed, Keith

  Holland, Philip

  Moate, Roger

  Spence, John

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Molyneaux, James

  Sproat, lain

  Hordern, Peter

  Money, Ernle

  Stainton, Keith

  Hornby, Richard

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Monro, Hector

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stokes, John

  Hunt, John

  Mudd, David

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Murton, Oscar

  Sutcliffe, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Neave, Airey

  Tapsell, Peter

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  James, David

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Normanton, Tom

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Nott, John

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Jessel, Toby

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tebbit, Norman

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Temple, John M.

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Osborn, John

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Jopling Michael

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Peel, John

  Tilney, John

  Kimball, James

  Percival, Ian

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

  Trew, Peter

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Kirk, Peter

  Pounder, Rafton

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robert

  Knox, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lambton, Antony

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Lane, David

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

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Raison, Timothy

  Wall, Patrick

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

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Walters, Dennis

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

  Redmond, Robert

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Longden, Gilbert

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Loveridge, John

  Rees, Peter (Dover)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Luce, R. N,

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  McCrindle, R. A,

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Wiggin, Jerry

  McLaren, Martin

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Wilkinson, John

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  McMaster, Stanley

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maddan, Martin

  Rost, Peter

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Madel, David

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Younger, Hn. George

  Marples, Rt. Hn, Ernest

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Marten, Neil

  Scott, Nicholas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

  Mather, Carol

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and

  Maude, Angus

  Sharples, Richard

  Mr. Jasper More.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Booth, Albert

  Cooks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Albu, Austen

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Bradley, Tom

  Conlan, Bernard

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Broughton, Sir Alfred

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Armstrong, Ernest

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

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Ashley, Jack

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

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Cronin, John

  Atkinson, Norman

  Buchan, Norman

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

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

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Barnes, Michael

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

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

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Dalyell, Tam

  Barnett, Joel

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Darling, Rt. Hn. George

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Cant, R. B.

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  808

  809

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pendry, Tom

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

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

  Pentland, Norman

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

  Dempsey, James

  Judd, Frank

  Prescott, John

  Doig, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kelley, Richard

  Probert, Arthur

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Rankin, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kinnock, Neil

  Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

  Driberg, Tom

  Lambie, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Lamond, James

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dunn, James A.

  Latham, Arthur

  Richard, Ivor

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Eadie, Alex

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Edelman, Maurice

  Leonard, Dick

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

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Roper, John

  Ellis, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Rose, Paul B.

  English, Michael

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Evans, Fred

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sandelson, Neville

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

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

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Foley, Maurice

  McCann, John

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Foot, Michael

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sillars, James

  Ford, Ben

  McElhone, Frank

  Silverman, Julius

  Forrester, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mackie, John

  Small, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spearing, Nigel

  Garrett, W. E.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ginsburg, David

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Steel, David

  Golding, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Micheal (Fulham)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Marks, Kenneth

  Strang, Gavin

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marquand, David

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marsden, F.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Taverne, Dick

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tinn, James

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Mendelson, John

  Tomney, Frank

  Hardy, Peter

  Mikardo, Ian

  Torney, Tom

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Tuck, Raphael

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Hattersley, Roy

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

  Molloy, William

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

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Watkins, David

  Horam, John

  Morris, Chartes R. (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Moyle, Roland

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  whitlock, William

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hunter, Adam

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

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

  Oram, Bert

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Janner, Creville

  Oswald, Thomas

  Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

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

  Padley, Walter

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

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

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. Donald Coleman and

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Mr. William Hamling.

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Resolved,
  That this House deplores the legacy of homelessness and housing shortage in London inherited from the last administration ; welcomes the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government,
  810
  together with the London authorities, to secure better provision for homeless people in London ; and expresses confidence in the determination of Her Majesty's Government to solve these problems as quickly as possible.

SPORT AND YOUTH SERVICES
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the cancellation of local sports club grants and the reduction of grants to British international sports teams ; it further condemns the present suspension of the scheme for grant aiding local youth club capital projects and the rejection by Her Majesty's Government of the report. Youth and Community Work in the 70's, and believes that these decisions will undermine the provision of local community services for which there is an increasing need.
Casting one's mind back to the early days of the Labour Government in 1964 one often thinks how much it was to the credit of my right hon. Friend the then Prime Minister that in the middle of the difficult economic situation that he inherited he decided that that was the moment when the quality of life and the provision of good leisure facilities for our people should find expression in the Ministerial appointments that he made. As the House will recall, he appointed, for the first time, two Ministers—my colleague, the then Jennie Lee, in charge of the arts, and myself, in charge of sport.
He felt that it was right for me to start my operations in the Department of Education, where there could be a link-up between the provision of sports services and youth services. In other words, this was the start of a conscious movement towards the provision of a leisure service.
This question of philosophy is of extreme importance. During the debate I shall no doubt take issue with hon. Members opposite, but I like to think that what we started in our six years has been progressively accepted by them. It has certainly been accepted throughout the country. In those early days some people had doubts about the advent of a Minister for Sports or a Minister for the Arts, but they rapidly saw the advantages—at any rate, in sport.
The one claim that I make for my six years' stewardship as Minister of Sport is that the various schemes that we announced during the course of the Labour Government were based on consultations within sport, and the advice of the Sports Council, and came overwhelmingly to be accepted by those in sport as being in the interests of its de-
812
velopment Now, one year after the advent of the present Government, we are discussing changes to be made in sport and in the youth service—changes which seem to us to be extremely serious, and to depart from the general philosophy that has been built up and become accepted during the last six years. In both sport and the youth service the basis on which we were operating was the development of the voluntary clubs. We felt that there was a need to improve the base of the pyramid—a need for a first-class foundation upon which the whole service could be built up.
I want to deal with sport first. Grants to voluntary sports clubs were a cornerstone of our policy. The Government, regrettably, have now announced the ending of those grants. I remind the House that they went up to a maximum of £10,000 in respect of any one club, not for replacing existing facilities but for new or additional facilties. The grants were made for buying a new sports ground, which otherwise would not have been possible, or for developing a sports ground by adding to its facilities—putting in floodlights, and so on.
Having read all that the party opposite has said through the years—and especially during the last General Election campaign—about the need to encourage voluntary endeavour, it is amazing to realise that when they make their first major inroad into schemes for sport they do so by chopping back on voluntary endeavour. I am not surprised that nobody in the world of sport understands it.
I am glad that in my six years—and I am sure that my successor follows the same practice—we did not have party political discussions in sport ; people were interested in getting on with the job. Nevertheless, there are more supporters of the party opposite than of mine in governing bodies in sport, and they are amazed that the first major change in the sports programme should be made at the expense of voluntary endeavour. It is a ludicrous situation. We were getting good value for money. If we can encourage a body of citizens to do a job for themselves we are much more likely to get value for money and a good return than we are if the State or local authorities are doing the job. That makes all the more incredible the Government's decision.

813
There is one thing that I am not clear about, and I hope that the Scottish Under-Secretary will be able to clear it up by a nod of the head, or will be able to tell me later. We are not certain whether the ending of grants for these voluntary sports clubs applies to Scotland.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor)The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor) indicated dissent.
Mr. Howell: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. It does not apply to Scotland. I am delighted to know that, because it leads me to my first question. How on earth can we justify the ending of this aid to governing bodies in voluntary sports in England and Wales but not in Scotland? It is a most astounding proposition that sports clubs in Scotland may receive a 50 per cent. grant whereas similar clubs in England and Wales receive no grant towards the build-up of facilities. I shall be happy to hear the Government's justification for that seemingly absurd situation.
Mr. James Dempsey: Can my hon. Friend explain whether the 50 per cent. applies to equipment or to buildings—or to both?
Mr. Howell: It applies to both. It used to, at any rate. It applied to capital equipment, buildings and land for additional sports facilities.
This scheme has been a tremendous success. I shall not go through all the sports, but they have had substantial help. But the sports of rugby, soccer, tennis and cricket all testify to the great help that this has been in getting their sport on a proper foundation. In 1968–69, over £1,400,000 was spent under this scheme in the three countries.
There are two very good reasons for supporting this scheme. One concerns the effect in the local community. The House cannot do better than to encourage a group of sportsmen to build facilities, to treasure them and to provide wonderful sporting opportunities for the youth of the area. That is first class. The other day I listened to the Minister in a broadcast with the new chairman of the Sports Council and one of the subjects discussed was the promotion of excellence in sport, about which I agree. But it is not possible to have champions at the top
814
unless there is a healthy grass roots activity in sport. For every champion there must be 2,000 or 3,000 people operating at local level. The healthier the local sporting facilities, the more champions we shall have at the top. It must follow that the more harm we do to good club facilities, the more difficult we make the task of making champions at the top.
The ending of the grants was done without any consultation with anybody, which caused me to explode the other day and to describe the Minister's attitude as arrogant.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): It was very unkind.
Mr. Howell: It may have been very unkind. The question is whether it was accurate. I do not know what other description the hon. Gentleman would wish me to use. Here is the cornerstone of British sports policy and he decides to end it at a stroke—one respect in instant action can apparently be taken—with no consultation with any of the bodies whose purpose is to advise him. When asked for the reason, he said :
"I had all the necessary consultations with the Sports Council on matters on which it could properly advise me."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1971 ; Vol. 820, c. 1328.]
In other words, the expenditure of 50 per cent. of its budget—[Interruption.] The sum of £1½ million must be about 50 per cent. because, according to the reply, the whole Budget is only £2·68 million this year, to which we must add the figure for Scotland. If it is not about 50 per cent. of its budget, it is at any rate a substantial part of it. The Minister decided that he could not learn anything from the Sports Council and did not need to consult it on the ending of a substantial part of the budget.
The Minister has decided to appoint a new independent Sports Council with Dr. Roger Bannister as its chairman. It is to start work in the autumn. So the Minister ended this scheme with no consultation with the present Sports Council and before the creation of the new independent Sports Council, which leads at once to the suspicion that this is nothing more or less than a Treasury exercise and that the hon. Gentleman has sold out to the Treasury.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.
Mr. Howell: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I am an old fox in these matters. I know the pressure which was put on me by the Treasury for six years to end this scheme and the youth scheme. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has succumbed to the pressure of the Treasury.
Not only did the Under-Secretary of State not consult the Sports Council ; he did not consult any of the regional sports councils. The West Midlands Sports Council was in session in Birmingham deciding the priorities for next year when it was rung up by someone from Whitehall who said, "All schemes are ended. Please do not submit any more recommendations".
The position concerning the local authorities is even more remarkable. The Under-Secretary of State and his friends, who have lectured us on the subject of consultation with local authorities and allowing the authorities to have their say, did not have one word of consultation with them. In his statement about ending the grant, the hon. Gentleman said, "Because I believe that local provision is right, I expect the local authorities to take over responsibility for it". Yet he had no word of consultation with them and no guarantees from them that they would take over responsibility for it. No addition was proposed to the general rate grant, which is the Government's contribution to local government, to meet the new obligations which the hon. Gentleman expected them to meet.
This is an absolutely incomprehensible situation. The worst local authorities, the most reactionary of them—unfortunately, there are many of them, although I am prepared to concede that they are not all of one political colour—
Mr. Joseph Ashton: There are fewer of them now than there were.
Mr. Howell: Yes.
The sports clubs are subject to the whim of the local authorities. They have no incentive. Think of the plight of all the sports clubs which have spent a long time in raising thousands of £s to meet their share of the expense in the expectation that they would get Government help for their schemes only to have them
816
stopped without a moment's notice. It is a very difficult job raising a few thousand £s these days. All these voluntary people who were ready to apply to the Government for a grant have been insulted.
The Minister says, very properly, that he is glad that he has more money for his new independent Sports Council. We welcome that. I am delighted about it, although I am not so delighted about the source from which the money came. The Under-Secretary of State is part of a very big Ministry and therefore this money has come from another sector of it. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is that he has obtained money for sport from housing. [HON. MEMBERS : "No."] Where has it come from? It must have come from housing, local government or roads. It has been made available because the Government cannot build houses in the local authority sector. Therefore, there was a bit spare on the account and they have said, "We will let you have another £1 million". I have done that myself, and I do not complain about it, but I did not get the money from housing. We welcome the additional money being given to sport, but it is regrettable that it has not been added to the Ministry's overall budget.
This is an incredible situation and it strikes at the community provision of good sports facilities. Another example is the way in which the Government have acted in the remarkable interchange going on in the Daily Express between the Minister and Mr. Desmond Hackett, an old friend of mine. It concerns the sort of thing which the Minister and I would wish to encourage. A territorial drill hall has been made available to over 63 clubs which have been started in two years. I mention that figure because it shows the need for local community facilities in Tottenham where there is not a blade of grass on which to kick a ball. In Tottenham and Islington the only two spaces on which people can kick a ball are the Tottenham Hotspur and Arsenal football grounds.
I am not surprised to find that this drill hall has been an outstanding success, but because of the needs of other Ministries and Departments it is threatened with closure. Hon. Members went to see the Minister about it. He said that he would do what he could, but he could not hold

817
out any hope. They did not get very far. There has been more activity as a result of the actions of the Daily Express and Mr. Desmond Hackett in the last 48 hours than there had been in the previous three months, because 48 hours ago Mr. Desmond Hackett announced that there would be a great march on No. 10 Downing Street on Sunday. They have already had one march which was two miles long.
Mr. Jack Wilson, who made the announcement, was promptly rung up by an official of the Central Council for Physical Recreation and was asked to call off the march. It is grossly improper for the Government to use a voluntary body to try to call off a political protest. I do not think the Minister and his colleagues should have done it.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I think that if the hon. Gentleman turns to his colleagues on his own benches he will find that they will tell him that the matter about which Mr. Hackett was writing is under discussion by myself and two of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues and one of my own, and the action which is being taken on this matter has been in train for some time. We are not responding to the Daily Express.
Mr. Howell: If the hon. Gentleman is not responding to the Daily Express he has a very odd way of expressing his non-response. I will tell the House what happened. Two or three weeks ago he certainly agreed to look into it, but nothing much happened, and Mr. Jack Wilson and his colleagues told Mr. Desmond Hackett, who made the disclosures yesterday. All hell was let loose. Never has there been such activity in the Department of the Environment. First, it got them to stop the march and then Mr. Jack Wilson had talks yesterday and today we have a handsome picture of the Minister on the back page of the Daily Express and I want to quote one sentence from the newspaper. It is a gem which I cannot spare the House. The Minister said, in reply to the charge that he did not go down to look at the sports club himself, gave as his reason—and it is magnificent—
"I was not prepared to go down to make a headline or improve a public image."
Those who have followed the great career of the Minister over the years can afford
818
to treat that phrase with a healthy degree of scepticism.
I move on to the question of international grants, which is another matter which falls within our Motion, and about which the whole sports world feels very strongly. This is pre-Olympics year ; near year we have the Olympics. When I came back from the Olympics in Mexico in 1968 I tried to evaluate our success, and one thing which was crystal clear to me, and later to the Sports Council, was that we could only do well in top class sport if we competed year in, year out, against other nations better than ourselves. For example, we did badly in swimming. Swimmers are found in Australia and California and it is no good swimming against Belgium and Holland ; that will not raise our standards sufficiently. I asked the sports bodies to come and see me, and the Sports Council asked them to prepare four-year development programmes which would lead to fruition in Olympics year. They responded to that invitation and they have done that. The Sports Council asked them on my behalf, "What can we do most to help you over a four-year programme reaching culmination in Olympics year?" This is pre-Olympics year, which is most important. They said, "Please give us more help in sending our British sports teams abroad". The reason is that many of the Olympic sports are not sports which attract tremendous popular spectator support ; they are not as popular as soccer, and have not the resources which can be supplied by vast armies of spectators. They responded to my invitation and prepared a programme based on the fact that I was going to give them more help to send British teams abroad. I am happy to say that in the last year in which I was responsible we were able to increase the amount of aid from 50 per cent. to two-thirds.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Just before the election.
Mr. Howell: It was not just before the election. The hon. Gentleman must get his facts right. It was in response to a request. Whether it was before the election or not does not matter, does it? The important thing is, ought we to be doing it? They having been asked to do that and to support a programme on the basis of a two-thirds

819
grant, it is an absolute breach of faith on the part of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues now to drop the grant from two-thirds to 50 per cent. It is an utter breach of faith. Why have they to do it? If the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and boasts of £1 million more for sport, why on earth is he dropping this grant, and in the year before the Olympics, when there is nothing more important than to get teams abroad to practise them in international competition?
If we want to see the effects of first-class competition we have one in Ray Terrell. I was recently in America looking at Ray Terrell, who was sent with private support to California to train against the best swimmers in the world. In a month or two this country has the benefit, when he has broken many records. He deserves our great congratulations. All that shows how important it is to compete against the world's best.
Why then has the Minister dropped the grant at a time when the Minister boasts he has an extra £1 million for sport? The sports bodies are now in a difficult position, having built up an extended programme. Not just before the General Election, for it takes months to arrange these things. There have to be international conferences, there have to be negotiations on programmes with the international governing bodies for sport. Now the whole thing has been chopped down by the Minister.
I turn to the new independent sports council. This is a cornerstone of the Amendment which the Government will doubtless be moving soon to the Motion I am moving. So I shall have to talk about it for a short time. That is a policy which has been rejected by almost everybody who has been consulted about it. I know that the Minister now says the local authorities welcome it. They and the sports bodies, having been faced with a fait accompli are, I have no doubt, prepared to make the best they can of it, and to do the best they can, and I am sure they will co-operate with the Minister to the best of their ability. When I consulted the sports bodies, the regional bodies, and the National Sports Council, they, and the Lilleshall conference, almost overwhelmingly rejected it as an
820
alternative to the present system. It was in the Conservative programme.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The public supported it.
Mr. Howell: The public did not support it. If the public did support it, it was because they did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by this exercise, and it is for him to explain to the House why he put it up.
The sports bodies are there to advise the Minister and they certainly turned it down. Their attitude can be summed up simply : "The present system, which the Labour Government created, works very well. What on earth do we want to interfere with it for?"
It is ironical that at the moment when almost every Government in the world, including the American Government, are having sports councils associated officially with the governmental machines, this Government are putting our council outside the machine. The Central Council for Physical Recreation consists of experts. It rejected this proposal. The governing bodies of sport have rejected it. The Minister did his best, but everybody consulted has rejected this policy.
If we want to know why he went on with the policy in the face of the very considerable rejection of it, the Amendment which is to be proposed gives the game away. It tells us perfectly clearly that the decision to have an independent sports council was taken in furtherance of the Government's election promises.
An Hon. Member: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Howell: I will say what is wrong with it. When the Minister consulted the sports bodies and the C.C.P.R. and the Sports Council he had already taken the decision and he was not going to take any notice of what they might think of it, or what they might tell him. Whatever views they might put, the election programme of the Government preempted everything. Some of us might wish that the Government's election policy were carried out in other fields of activity, but I should be out of order if I went into that.
We wish the new Sports Council well and we hope that it prospers, although we have grave doubts about it. What does

821
the Minister of Sport do if he is not the Minister of Sport? We should like to know the answer to that interesting conundrum. He will not be chairing the Sports Council. We shall not be able to put down Questions in the House, because he will say it is not his business but the business of the Sports Council. There will not be the public cross-examination which there has been for six years—
Mr. Ray Carter: As there was on South Africa.
Mr. Howell: I will not get sidetracked onto South Africa. That is a subject that will be with us for some time. I want to concentrate upon the Minister. What appeal will there be from the decisions of the non-elected Sports Council?
I have seen copies of the consultation correspondence with some local authorities. There will be a Sports Council consisting of 20 people, some representing England and Wales, two representing the whole of local government, and some representing sport. It will be a grotesquely unbalanced Sports Council. If this body of non-elected people takes a decision how can it be challenged? For the last six years any decision which I took could be challenged by any one of 600 Members of Parliament. That sanction has now been withdrawn.
Mr Eldon Griffiths Mr Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.
Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must not shake his head ; he knows it has been removed. The Table Office will not accept Questions about the decisions of an independent council when it is set up. It is almost inconceivable that an independent Sports Council should take decisions which should be the responsibility of the Minister about local authority capital expenditure. It must be explained to us where local authorities can go when they wish to get loan sanction for their schemes or to talk about the global aspect of capital grants.
The independent chairman of the Sports Council is to be Dr. Roger Bannister, and I wish him well in his task. There are two aspects of this which cause me concern. First, the one argument in favour of an independent Sports Council used to be that it was independent and could criticise the Government. Those who advanced that argument to me, including the Conservative Party, said that
822
my Sports Council, because I was the Chairman, could not criticise the Government. I understand that Dr. Bannister is now to be regarded as the Government's principal adviser on sport. If the chairman of the Sports Council is the Government's principal adviser, gone at one stroke is the council's critical function. How can the chairman of an independent Sports Council and the Government's principal adviser on sport criticise the Government he is advising? This is ludicrous.
Mr. Brian Harrison: Is not it part of the rôle of an adviser to criticise?
Mr. Howell: It would certainly detract at least 50 per cent. from any reasonable notion of independence if the man who is advising the Government is expected to criticise the Government. We should have to know on every issue—and I do not think the Government would find this acceptable—what was the advice. We should want to know why he had not criticised the Government. It may be that the Government were accepting his advice. This is putting Dr. Bannister in an untenable position.
Secondly, it is generally thought that Dr. Bannister will give two days a week to this job as part-time chairman. I spent two days a week in my Ministerial function and chairing the Sports Council plus two days at the weekend going round the country. It is no good having a chairman of the Sports Council who is not going around the country when sport is being player, which is mostly on Saturdays and Sundays. But Dr. Bannister is not only assuming the Minister's rôle and being chairman of the Sports council, he is also taking over the rôle of Sir Stanley Rous on the Central Council for Physical Education. Dr. Bannister will now run the national recreation centres, of which there are several, he will run all the coaching which the C.C.P.E. does and he will run the games and sports committee and the whole council of sport. He is taking all that under his wing in addition to what I was doing as Minister, and in addition to being chairman of the Sports Council. Those functions, which are extremely important, require the services of a full-time chairman and cannot be done on the basis of a commitment to two days a week.

823
I move on to the youth service. Here again we censure the Government because of the fundamental indifference of their attitude. The report "Youth and Community Work in the 70s" represented two years' work. I will try briefly to tell the House the opinion of the youth service Development Committee—of which, as Under-Secretary of State for Education, I was privileged to be Chairman—which undertook this task.
There had been a catastrophic fall in the number of people going into the youth service. This was when the school leaving age was to be raised from 15 to 16 and when Parliament had decided that young people became adults at 18. This was the challenging situation which the Committee reviewed. The Committee said that there had to be two levels of youth service, one for people in the school system of 16, 17 and 18 and one for young adults at 18. Young people of 16, 17 and 18 regard themselves as adults and that is why they do not go into youth clubs. The Committee said that the real work is where young people are to be found. If young people are to be found in cafés, discotheques, clubs and street corners, that is where the youth work must be undertaken.
The report received a great welcome throughout the youth service. Every training college of youth leaders re-jigged its whole policy on the basis of the recommendations of the report, and every youth leader was being trained for youth work in the community as a whole. The Secretary of State for Education and Science has completely rejected the whole report, and this has caused a tremendous lowering of morale throughout the youth service. People do not know what sort of decisions to make. Youth colleges and local authority youth organisations are based on what was said in the report, but the Government have rejected it and put nothing in its place.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary in the last year have not produced one idea of their own to take the place of the philosophy of the report which they have rejected. This is a matter of extreme regret. I do not believe that the critics of the report understand the problems in our cities. They do not appreciate the problems which
824
face a youngster who comes from an indifferent home with overcrowded conditions and who works, day in and day out, in a factory on the same job. He comes home to enjoy his leisure, and has only the street corner, because there are no adequate leisure facilities in the town. That is the prospect facing millions of young people.
It is incredible that at the same time as the Government have cut back schemes for grant-aided youth work, the people in our society with the best brains—the students in their student unions—have had more money spent on their leisure activities. Those students, who are quite able to look after themselves, have the best facilities for sports activities and the best opportunity for their leisure hours. It is the down-town youngster, who leaves school at the age of 15, who will feel the brunt of the economy cuts of this Government. This is what will flow from the rejection of this report and the ending of grants to youth clubs.
It is interesting to note that the Government are now proposing a new system involving a third contribution from Government, a third from local authorities and a third from voluntary bodies. This means that the voluntary bodies are being further imposed upon by the Conservative Party since they have now to raise, not one-quarter, but one-third of the amount. If it is thought fit to give a one-third grant to youth clubs, why is nothing being given to sports clubs? The two things are synonymous since they are doing the same sort of basic job in our society.
Another aspect of this matter was brought to my attention at Birmingham at the weekend. There is a new comprehensive school at Perry Barr costing several hundred thousand pounds, but although the area also needs a youth centre the education authority could not get from the Government a decision on the provision of capital expenditure on that project at the same time as they got a decision on the allocation of capital funds for the school. This is typical of the difficulties which have been created.
I apologise for taking more time than I intended—[HON. MEMBERS : "ear, hear."] The changes in Government policy need to be explored. Those of us who know the large cities are aware of the sort of problems to be found in

825
them. We know all about the misuse of leisure in our society and the lack of facilities for a good leisure service. This is the root cause of much of the difficulty in our urban communities ; this is the most pressing of all the needs. The provision of a sports service in the local community, the provision of youth services and the availability of skilled youth leadership, which is one of the most difficult jobs in our society, have been undermined by Government decisions over the last year. We shall register our protest in the Division Lobby.
8.5 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :
'welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to fulfil its election promises by establishing an independent sports council with enhanced status, wider powers and larger funds at their disposal ; believes the sports council should have wide discretion in the allocation of those funds for local and regional purposes ; and notes with approval the intention to continue support for the Youth Service and to ensure that it is used effectively'.
In my speech I shall be dealing with that part of the Amendment which refers to sport. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) will recall only too well that until October 1969 the Minister responsible for sport also had responsibility for the youth services, but the Labour Administration saw an advantage in separating these two functions. Therefore, it is the hon. Gentleman's bad luck that he must now accept the disadvantage of waiting for a separate reply on the youth service from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science. I shall deal with sport.
I begin by paying tribute to the work of the Sports Council over the past six years, to all those who have served it so well, and indeed to the hon. Gentleman for the leadership he gave to it. He was successful in creating a climate of enthusiasm for sport, and I readily pay him that tribute.
The new Sports Council, which the Government are setting up in pursuance of their election manifesto—I do not know why the hon. Gentleman should regard it as a bad thing that we should keep our promises—differs from the
826
present one in several important respects. It is right that I should explain them to the House.
First, its status will be considerably enhanced. It will have a royal charter, and its individual members will bring in quite a number of substantial and important bodies. On the new Sports Council, there will be direct membership of the local authorities and of the Armed Services. I am sure that this is right since the Armed Services have a great number of sports facilities. It will also have at the membership level very much closer links with such other bodies as the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy and the Forestry Commission.
I hope that the Council will operate as a board of directors making broad and strategic policy decisions about sport and investment in sport rather than as the old Council has operated working through all the minute details of many hundreds—and, indeed, thousands—of applications. Those details will be the responsibility of the new Sports Council's professional staff, who henceforth will not have to operate through the complex and often time-consuming processes of Whitehall. Incidentally, we expect to save over the next year 31 full-time civil servants. The new Council will have a higher status. I hope and expect that when the names of its members are announced shortly it will make a far greater impact on the ordinary people of the country.
The present Council has done excellent work but it has not been sufficiently well known to the man on the football terraces or to the average weekend sportsman. In particular, I have always thought it rather odd—I believe I shall carry the hon. Gentleman with me on this matter—that a national Sports Council should be expected to be credible to the ordinary man in the street when for all practical purposes it has had nothing to do with the country's premier game—namely, professional football. I hope to remedy this deficiency in the new Sports Council. Football is our greatest national game and is fully entitled to have a voice in the Sports Council, and the Government will see that it does have one.
The second change in the sports council is that it will be independent. The difference is substantially that the Minister

827
will no longer be in the chair. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is possible to have various views about this matter, but it is significant that the Wolfenden Committee, following whose advice the Sports Council was originally established, strongly advocated an executive council with an independent chairman. I am sure that this is right. A Minister inevitably shares responsibility with his other colleagues for all facets of Government policy. He cannot, therefore, become a lobbyist for funds for one particular kind of activity.
If the Sports Council wanted, as it often has during the hon. Gentleman's time as well as in mine, publicity to criticise or condemn the Government's attitude towards sport, the fact that a member of the Government and one who for all practical purposes has appointed himself and the members of the council was occupying the chair meant in practice that the council was virtually gagged from public debate.
Mr. Denis Howell: But it did it.
Mr. Griffiths: Ministers are in politics as well as in Government, and, though sport and politics can never be completely divorced, it is bad in principle that the voice of the Sports Council should be heard exclusively through the lips of a political Minister. As The Times newspaper said when I announced the changes, it is far better that the chairman of the council should be independent and be seen to be independent of the Government.
In Dr. Roger Bannister, I believe that the Government have found an excellent chairman. I assure the House and all sportsmen that his independence will be respected completely by the Government. For my part, I shall do all that I can to assist him in his endeavours.
The third difference between the old council and the new one is that the new one will have substantially greater powers. I cite only two examples. It will as an executive agency be able to set up new national sports centres ; for example, for Olympic sailing, perhaps for lawn tennis, or for anything else that it judges is needed. Through its regional sports councils, it will be able to act as a sort of marriage broker—in a way that an advisory body could not do—by bringing
828
together, where appropriate, statutory undertakers like the Countryside Commission, or the Forestry Commission, with the governing bodies of sport, with local authorities and, whenever possible or desirable, with private enterprise, so as to create new sporting centres all over the nation. For example, if a football stadium or cricket ground were under-used and in need of redevelopment—it might be Lords ; it might even be some London football club—there would be nothing to prevent the new council from bringing in the local authority, the local education authority and other local sports clubs so as to plan a multi-purpose sports development for the benefit of the whole community.
At present, the council can do little more than urge such developments, for the council today has no money and no power. But the new council, at its discretion, will be able to use the funds at its disposal to prime the pumps of precisely these projects. That is a new power not possessed by the Sports Council hitherto.
Obviously, it is for the new council and its chairman to determine its priorities of policy and expenditure. But I have agreed with Dr. Bannister four main lines of policy that the new council will seek to pursue.
The first is that it will seek to get better use of our existing facilities. I am sure that I carry the House with me when I say that far too many schools and colleges have large areas of playing fields and gymnasia which to all intents and purposes go out of use at five in the afternoon, after Friday evenings and for three months during the summer. I very much hope—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What does the hon. Gentleman think has been happening?
Mr. Griffiths: Efforts have been made to cultivate dual use. There are about a hundred dual-use projects in the pipeline. The hon. Member for Small Heath pushed this idea as much as anyone. Dr. Bannister has agreed that one of the aims of the new council will be to get better use of our existing facilities. I am thinking not only of schools and colleges but of the sports facilities of our Armed Services, of the nationalised industries, of the Civil Service and of many private

829
firms whose sports grounds could be much better used for the community than they are at present.
Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Gentleman attempting to make his case by saying that it is necessary to set up a completely new council in order to do that which is being done already and was going on continuously under the previous Minister?
Mr. Griffiths: No. I am trying to help the House by setting up the terms of reference of the new council. It is right that the House should know them. The increased use of existing facilities is one of the main lines of policy that the new chairman of the council has agreed.
The second is to bring into use for sport and recreation much more of our natural resources. One has in mind the forests, the countryside, the lakes, and the rest.
The third main line of policy will be to apply the best of modern technology to the provision of sports facilities. I am glad to say that the Technical Unit for Sport, which I have been able to strengthen substantially, will be at the disposal of the new council. The type of help that it will be able to give is best illustrated by one example. One of the first requests that I made of the T.U.S. was that it should design a "best buy" standard swimming pool. My reason for doing so was that up and down the country there are pools which have cost various sums. In some cases it has cost £500,000 to put in a 25-metre pool. In others a similar pool has cost £250,000. Just as we have made a break-through in educational building with the standardised Terrapin classroom, I thought it should be possible to apply the same batch production to swimming pools and other sports facilities. The T.U.S. has designed the first "best buy" swimming pool. It is now being installed in conjunction with the Ashton-under-Lyne local authority. If it proves successful, I hope very much that we shall be able to move to large-scale production of these types of well-designed and economical pools for large numbers of people.
Mr. Skinner: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the old-established North-western Sports Council made any recommendation about the pool at Ashton-under-Lyne about which he has just been talking?
Mr. Griffiths: Like other councils, that body is very enthusiastic about this new development, which gives the promise of large numbers of pools being installed in local communities all over the country. If it is done with modular construction and the next project is for a "best buy" sports hall, and, after that, standardised squash courts, it will be possible to lock-on various other units so that eventually one builds a mini-sports centre using the best forms of modern technology. I am glad to say that the new chairman is willing to follow that line of policy.
The fourth is one about which I hope there will be no contention. It is that, where possible, the new council will seek to interest private enterprise in more sports bodies. One possibility is simple commercial investment for profit. I see nothing wrong in that. Another possibility is the bringing of private, especially industrial, sports grounds into wider use. I can see a rôle for sponsorship, though I accept that there must be certain limitations. I know that the new chairman is interested in the possibility of working out some code of sponsorship so that sporting bodies will have broad criteria on which to judge whether they should become associated with commercial firms.
All the points of policy that the new chairman has agreed arise essentially from the executive powers of the new council, especially from one power ; namely, that for the first time it will be possible for the new council directly to grant-aid local authority sports projects. That is of considerable importance.
The new council will have very much wider responsibilities than the old one. I have mentioned the need to bring into recreational use our country's natural environment—the forests, mountains, rivers and waterways and, where appropriate, the national parks. In the past the old Sports Council has done all that it could to keep in close contact with the statutory bodies responsible for these things. But henceforth the new council

831
will be able—indeed, I expect it—to do very much more in this direction. For example, I expect that at member level there will be a direct link with the Countryside Commission. The Chairman of the Forestry Commission, whom I saw the other day, has also undertaken to work closely with the national and regional sports councils so that more use can be made of our forested areas, and the privately-owned forestry organisations have gladly supported this approach.
It is the same with the rivers and lakes. Whatever form of reorganisation of the water industry my right hon. Friend may decide, I know that he has in mind to strengthen the duty to increase sports opportunities. Again, the new Sports Council will be able to help, not only with advice or technical suggestions, but, as it judges right, by the judicious use of its own funds.
Here perhaps I might say a word about reservoirs. Bearing in mind the enormous increase in demand for water recreation, I was surprised on taking office to find that of 500 reservoirs in England and Wales only 250 had arrangements for fishing, only 44 permitted sailing of any kind, and a mere half-dozen allowed canoeing. This is not good enough when on an average summer weekend there are nowadays more people involved with boats in one way or another than there are attending first-class professional football matches on an average winter weekend.
I therefore caused every statutory water authority in the country to be asked to review its practice of admitting or excluding sportsmen. I am pleased to tell the House that 34 separate water undertakers controlling tens of thousands of acres of water space have recently made, or plan soon to make, increased provision for recreational use of their reservoirs. I know that Dr. Bannister will enthusiastically follow up this initiative.
This widening of the horizons of the Sports Council to include the forests and the water has been widely welcomed by those who care most about recreation in its fullest sense. But to discharge its very much broader responsibilities the new Sports Council will need more cash. That is the final main difference between the old and the new Sports Council. The
832
old Sports Council had no money. Every penny was in the Minister's hands. The new Sports Council will have a good deal more money than the hon. Member for Small Heath was ever able to lay his hands on for help to sport.
I will come to the local capital grants in some detail later, but, first, I should, in fairness, state the record.
Expenditure on sport by both national Government and local authorities, the local authorities bearing the lion's share, has been as follows. In 1965, following the activities of the previous Conservative Government, the total expenditure central Government and local authority together, was £16·03 million. In 1966 the total was £6·9 million ; in 1967 £7·8 million ; in 1968 £8·9 million ; and in 1969–70 £9·4 million. The House will notice at once that in 1966 there was a drop of more than £9 million in expenditure on sport from a total budget of £16 million. This was almost entirely a drop on local authority account. The second result of the Labour Government was that local authority expenditure, which when we left office, had been £14 million, fell back in 1966 to £5·6 million.
Mr. Denis Howell Mr. Denis Howell rose—
Mr. Griffiths: I want to go on, before the hon. Gentleman interrupts, to give credit where it is due.
Central Government help for sport rose from £750,000 in 1964 to £1¼ million in 1965 and by the efforts of the hon. Gentleman, I am happy to acknowledge, it has risen to over £2 million in 1969. For 1970—before an election—he got it up to £2·5 million. Yet—this is the point on which I think the House will latch—after six years of Labour rule the total expenditure on sport by central and local government combined was still less—significantly less—than in 1964, the last year of the previous Conservative Government.
I turn now to what we have done since taking office last June.
Mr. Howell: I do not complain about the figures which the hon. Gentleman has just given, except that he has not given the figure for 1970–71 for which we provided.
Mr. Griffiths: I think that I gave that figure.
Mr. Denis Howell: I think that the hon. Gentleman stopped at 1969–70. Perhaps he will give it to us on the capital side. The point is that the hon. Gentleman knows why there was this serious fall on local authority capital account. It was due entirely to the economic situation which led to devaluation. Whatever the hon. Gentleman said about it, the Conservative Party agreed with us at the time that, in the serious situation following devaluation, there should be no cuts in aid to housing, schools and hospitals, so the cuts had to be made elsewhere. However, six years of Labour Government enabled the Conservative Government to take over a far healthier balance of payments situation than we inherited from them.
Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman is not helping his case. This is a debate about sport. The facts on sport are that when the previous Conservative Government left office in 1964 the total expenditure by local authorities and central Government was about £15 million to £16 million and when the Labour Government left office that total expenditure had dropped to less than £10 million. If the hon. Gentleman regards that as progress for sport, heaven help us.
I turn now to what we have done on this account since taking office last June. Before doing so, I should say that by 18th June last year, the day of the General Election, I found when I got into my particular chair that almost the whole of the total loan sanction then available for sports expenditure for this financial year had already been committed. It shows how confident the hon. Gentleman must have been about Labour winning the General Election that he blew the lot before the vote was taken, and when I took over the cupboard was bare.
I am glad to say that the present Government have replenished the cupboard. First, we increased the Exchequer's contribution to £2·7 million for 1971. On top of this we are proposing to seek the authority of the House to add a further £500,000—an increase of nearly one-fifth. All told, there is a new injection of fresh, additional expenditure of about £1·2 million ; that is 60 per cent., over and above the largest sum ever achieved by the previous Government in any full year for which they were wholly responsible.
834
I now turn to local capital grants, of which the hon. Gentleman sought to make such a meal. I first tell him flatly that it is untrue to say, as the Motion does, that local sports club grants have been cancelled or suspended. Not a penny of this money is being lost to sport. The whole sum, and more—because a great deal of administrative costs will be saved under the new arrangements—will be made over to the new Sports Council to use at its broad discretion.
The position on local clubs is simply this. The Government agree that the strength of the local club is the foundation of all that is best in British sport, and I am in no doubt whatsoever that under the new arrangements local clubs will continue to thrive. They will thrive because most of them depend not on hand-outs from the State but on their own voluntary efforts. They will thrive because the local authorities are by no means so unenlightened and so unconcerned for the needs of local sport as the hon. Gentleman seeks to think. The clubs will also be helped—and this is the important point—because, contrary to the mistaken impression conveyed in the Motion, the new Sports Council will have a wide discretion to take over from the Government by joining in with local authorities, or with the governing bodies of sport, to help these clubs as it sees fit.
As far as local authorities are concerned, there is one thing that I should say bluntly. They are less likely to help local sports clubs if the Government— meaning the taxpayers—for ever go on doing the job for them. For my part, I am by no means pessimistic about the willingness and ability of local authorities to respond to the needs of their local clubs. For one thing—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening—local authorities will take account of the new Sports Council's power —which the old one did not possess—to offer direct grant-aid to its own sports projects. It is for the Sports Council itself to decide how, when and where it will exercise this power, and I should be surprised—I ask the hon. Gentleman to listen carefully to these words—if any local authority which had totally ignored the needs of local clubs in its area found itself at the top of the regional sports

835
council's list of recommendations for assistance ; much less would it be the choice of the Sports Council when it came to allocating funds. Rather, I suspect that the new Sports Council, with its executive and grant-aiding powers, will exercise its discretion in the direction of making it worth while, in a local authority's own interests, to treat its clubs generously.
That is not simply an assertion of an expectation but rather the hard experience, and I come now to the hard experience on which my optimism is based. It is the experience of my Department's circular DOE 2/70—a document with which I am sure all hon. Members are familiar—which identifies certain types of local authority expenditure, including expenditure on sport, as "locally determined schemes". Within the allocation available for those schemes local authorities now have complete power to make their own decisions about how they spend that money without reference to my Department. The circular was as good a test as any of local authorities' willingness to respond to the needs of sport when given freedom to do so, and I think the House would like to have some measure of what has happened as the result of providing that discretion to local authorities.
I could take all the regions of the country, but I pick out just three, and the first is the North-West. In 1968 loan sanctions for sports projects for local authorities were running at the rate of £1·7 million. The figure was £1·3 million in 1969, and £1·7 million in 1970. By contrast, in 1971, the first year in which the effects of Circular 2/70 were felt—that is to say, the year in which local authorities were free to make their own decisions—investment has shot up rapidly. It has gone well over the £2 million mark, and there is more still coming in for this year.
In Wales the comparable figures, during the period when there was no discretion, are £250,000 for 1968, £400,000 for 1969 and £900,000 for 1970. That was a good rising trend ; but look at what has happened since Welsh local authorities have been free to make their own decisions. Their sports investment, freed of Government control, has shot up to an all-time record of just over the £2 million mark, with more to come.
836
I am glad to say that the pattern is the same all over the country. The Greater London and South-East Sports Council reports a marked increase. So, far from our new policy of trusting the local authorities leading to a reduction in sports expenditure, on the facts there has been almost everywhere a substantial and encouraging increase.
I must therefore reject the suggestion that in placing more responsibility on local authorities to assist purely local clubs we are somehow consigning those clubs to outer darkness. The evidence is to the contrary. Every penny that local authorities may henceforth appropriate to help their local clubs is new money for sport. The whole of the Government's present allocation is being turned over in full to the new Sports Council to dispense at its broad discretion.
I turn now to international grants. The Motion speaks of a reduction in grant to British international sports teams. My answer to the charge is simply that it is not true. On the contrary, in 1971–72 substantially more money is being paid out in grants to more British international teams, involving more players going to more overseas countries, than in any previous year in our history. Next year there will be more all round.
I think hon. Members would like to have the full facts and figures on which to judge the Motion for themselves. But, first, I should like to deal with one specific matter—Olympic training. Next year is Olympic year. The winter Olympics are taking place at Sapporo in Japan in February 1972 and the main games in Munich from 26th August to 10th September in that same year. The British Olympic Association is planning to offer British competitors three weeks' training at high altitude shortly before the games, followed by five to 11 days in the Olympic villages. It is doing so for all chosen athletes who take part in endurance events. The House will understand the advantages which accrue from that. The British Olympic Committee's application for grant-aid in this respect is now before my Department, and I am glad to be able to say that we shall deal with this application and the point about high altitude training very generously.
I have also agreed that funds should be available for the travel and training

837
of our top class sportsmen not only in Olympics and Commonwealth games but for all other competitions of world significance. This is an important change. Previously only the 23 sports admitted to the International Olympic Committee or to the Commonwealth Games were eligible for Government assistance for training, as distinct from travel, which meant that a large number of sports—about 73—were debarred under the previous rules from getting grants towards travel and training teams to represent Britain at these world events.
Henceforth this artificial barrier will no longer be applied and all governing bodies of sport, irrespective of whether they are Olympic sports or not, will be eligible to apply to the new Sports Council for training as well as travel grants. One sport which will benefit is table tennis. I am sure that the House, mindful of the success of our table tennis team in China, will be glad to hear of this new arrangement.
I will now set out the facts on which the House may judge. International grants over recent years have been paid to our sports teams as follows. In 1964–65, the last year of the previous Conservative Government's arrangements, it was £40,500. In 1965–66, the first full year of the hon. Member's conduct of sporting affairs, it was 28,000, a drop of more than a quarter. Over the remaining years of his Government the hon. Gentleman raised the grant to £72,000 in 1966–67, cut it to £62,000 in 1967–68, moved it up to £100,000 in 1968–69, and cut it back again to £75,000 in 1969–70. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to contest the figures?
Mr. Denis Howell: I am not contesting the figures because there was no cut. All the grants applied for by the sports bodies were paid. Naturally, the figures go up and down depending upon how close Olympic year is. No one applied for grant under this programme and was refused.
Mr. Griffiths: I think the hon. Gentleman will regret in a few moments that he said that. I congratulate him on having achieved this "up and down" increase, but what the House and British sport may find a trifle disturbing is that the figures I have quoted from the hon. Gentleman's own record were only shop window
838
figures. They were the amounts which the hon. Gentleman estimated he would spend on international sports teams, but they bore very little resemblance to the amounts which our sports teams actually received.
In 1966 the hon. Gentleman put £72,000 into his international shop window, but the sum he actually paid out was only £44,000—a shortfall of 40 per cent.
Mr. Howell: Why?
Mr. Griffiths: I am giving the record. In 1968–69, when the hon. Gentleman reached his high-water mark—I give him credit for it—of £100,000 for international sports grant, the amount which the clubs actually received was £50,420 ; in other words, they were short-changed by 50 per cent.
The plain fact is that Labour promises were not matched by Labour performance, But that is not the whole of it. In 1970, during the run-up to the General Election, the hon. Gentleman, for the first time, changed the rules in a more generous direction and, as he very fairly explained, after he attended the Mexico Olympics he thought there was reason to move the proportion of grant up to two-thirds and he got the Sports Council to agree to pay two-thirds of a qualifying team's international travel expenses instead of half.
However, with the dramatic growth in international sport, there was an avalanche of new applications and, as a result, the Sports Council found that the funds appropriated by the hon. Gentleman were hopelessly insufficient to meet his own well-publicised generosity.
The Sports Council—I have the minutes—carefully considered this question. Either it could continue to pay up to two-thirds of the approved travel costs and thereby risk depriving some teams of the chance of taking part at all or it could assist a much larger number of teams by reverting to the pre-election year practice of 50 per cent. travel grants, with the proviso, which still stands, that two-thirds would be offered in exceptional circumstances.
The Sports Council decided by a unanimous vote that it could not accept a state of affairs in which some teams would have no grant at all because the money had been spent in giving more

839
fortunate or, perhaps, just earlier applications two-thirds of their travel costs. In the Sports Council's view, and in mine, it was better to spread the available butter a little more thinly over more slices of bread so that all might have a chance of at least 50 per cent.
Mr. Denis Howell: I am sorry to intervene yet again, but the last five minutes of the Minister's speech have been beyond belief. If, as he says, there was an avalanche of applications because we increased the incentive by giving two-thirds, and if, as he says, he would have the extra £1½ million for his Sports Council, why did he allow the cut-back on the amount of grant on each individual application from two-thirds to a half, knowing perfectly well that he would get the extra £1 million or £1¼ million which is the main basis of his case today?
I take strong exception to the hon. Gentleman saying—I regard the phrase as contemptuous—that I was shortchanging the sports bodies. The House knows perfectly well what the procedure is. We made provision in our Estimates for the amounts which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to read out. The fact that the sports bodies themselves did not come forward with enough proposals to take up the whole of those amounts is not evidence of short-changing. It is evidence of the fact that we were prepared to meet every demand made upon us, and we did.
Mr. Griffiths: The evidence is simple. The hon. Gentleman said that he would appropriate a certain amount, and he managed to spend less than half of it. That is short-changing in anyone's book. But the important question is whether the present Government have been able to do any better. The House will be glad to learn that in 1970–71 my Department has been able more than to double the amount of money actually paid out, not just appropriated for international sports team grants. This year, after doubling it last year, we have put up the appropriation by a further 34 per cent. Here is my answer to the words of the Motion. In 1969–70, the last full year for which the hon. Gentleman was responsible, the international grant was
840
set at £75,000. Last year it was £125,000, a quantum leap of two-thirds, and this year it is £168,000, which is better than twice as much as the hon. Gentleman ever appropriated, and well over three times as much as his Government actually spent in any full year for which he was responsible.
Therefore, I reject the Motion and ask the House rather to accept the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he says that the House
"welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to fulfil its election promises by establishing an independent sports council with enhanced status, wider powers and larger funds at their disposal ;"
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. There is just time for the winding-up speeches and one or two more. If each hon. Member speaks for five minutes, less than half those wanting to speak will be able to take part.
Mr. Dempsey: On a point of order. We have listened for all this time to Front Bench speakers, especially the Minister. Their speeches have been timed at a total of 87 minutes, which is far too long in a three-hour debate, and we still have the winding-up speeches to come. As you are the custodian of the rights of back-benchers, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do you not feel that it is about time speeches like the one which we have just heard were guillotined to enable back-benchers to have a fairer share of the time, especially during such a short debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order. I cannot control the length of speeches. Sometimes I wish that I could, but on the whole I think that I am fortunate not to be able to do so. I agree that speeches on these occasions tend to get too long. Anyway, if hon. Members now speak briefly and to the point they will, I hope, be able to say what they want.
8.48 p.m.
Dr. David Owen: It is important to bring the debate down to the grass roots, and I will try briefly to talk about some of the effects of the recent changes in the regions.

841
I resigned today as chairman of the South-West Regional Sports Council, a post I have held for 3½ years with great enthusiasm. My resignation had nothing to do with any criticisms I may make. Sport at grass roots level is traditionally non-political, and I hope that it will long remain so. I also hope that other hon. Members may serve as chairmen of sports councils. Such service is a remarkable opportunity to get to work with local authorities.
I do not think that the Minister is sufficiently aware of the sheer practical problems that have arisen from the change of policy, though his right to make the change is clear-cut. It was announced in a telephone message to the secretaries of regional sports councils the day after the announcement to the House. They were suddenly told that the grants would cease. The question of consultation was one thing the hon. Gentleman did not dwell on at all. Voluntary organisations can thrive only on genuine consultation.
It is important for the Government to carry such bodies with them. In the regions the local authorities' co-operation with the regional sports councils has been entirely voluntary, and it was very important to retain confidence. People who have had applications in which have not yet gone to the Ministry, but which are before the technical panels of the sports councils, for insance, are finding themselves in real difficulties. The most glaring example in the South-West Region is the Liskeard swimming pool. I see that the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) is present, and I suspect that it may be the Liskeard swimming pool that he is concerned about.
Let us consider the practical effects for Liskeard. People have collected over £3,000 from individual subscriptions for the swimming pool. That is hard to do in a small place like Liskeard. They also have grant aid from their two small local authorities. They are not wealthy people. They had every reason to expect and hope for a grant from the Government to enable them to build their swimming pool. But they ran into a technical problem. They put in their application but unfortunately it did not have quite enough facts and had to be deferred until the next meeting. Meanwhile, however, the guillotine has come down and they find that they cannot get the money from
842
the Government, because the Government's cut-off takes effect immediately. Whatever the hon. Gentleman's feelings on this issue, he should give thought to phasing this process and tell such people that they can carry on with a certain amount of money for the next year or two. The problem is that local authorities have already made their financial allocations for the year. In any case, the smaller local authorities in particular have not the resources to take aboard this sort of finance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the regional sports councils. The new Sports Council will hold an important position and its money could be used in this way. I hope that he will use the Government's money flexibly and consider the recommendations of regional sports councils to get small local clubs out of this present short-term difficulty. It will cause great disappointment to such clubs if the grants close up for two years or so.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman's optimism is justified, but whatever he may say about the long-term trend, many of us fear that in 1971–72 and 1972–73 the overall spending of local authorities will be bad and that we shall not get the figure up to the level that has come from Government grants. The idea of disciplining bad local authorities causes me great concern. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is aiming at and it commends itself, I am sure, to all of us. But the people penalised are really the sportsmen, and one of the great things which the Sports Council has been able to do is to give help where a bad local authority does not give enough responsibility and priority to sport. It is not enough to say, "You must change the local authority". We all know how difficult that is. We also know that changing attitudes towards a sport can take years to achieve.
I believe that the great achievement in this sector of our six years in office has been to change attitudes in sport, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) for that. The regional sports councils have a tremendously difficult task to do, and the sooner the hon. Gentleman gives them a definite programme, and tells us how he sees them fitting in under the new Sports Council, their contribution in advising it

843
about special facilities in the regions, and how much is forthcoming in grants, the better, because these are all very important aspects.
I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is to bring Service people more into association with sport. There are large Service establishments in the West Country. None of us on the South-West Regional Sports Council ever felt that we had used the facilities enough. There is, indeed, a lack of facilities for individual Servicemen. Over all, there is not enough co-operation.
My experience has convinced me that the regional sports councils have proved themselves and that one cannot run sport from the centre completely. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be flexible in his allocation of resources for the next two years and to do everything to ensure a proper rôle for the regional sports councils. I have been uncertain about their rôle now for over a year. I had hoped to keep my resignation back until after the changes had been announced and I am only sorry that this has taken such a long time. They need to be supported and to know where they are going. I am convinced that they have an important rôle to play under the new set-up and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make certain that they get it. I remind him that it is the regional sports councils which will get a bad name through the cut-off of capital grants, and this will do damage to their image, which has been built up steadily over the years. We need an undertanding approach from the Minister and a confession that the way in which this matter has been handled so far has been far from satisfactory, that there should have been more consultation and much more collaboration with local authorities and a more realistic understanding of the difficulties at grass root level.
8.55 p.m.
Mr. Charles Morrison: I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary paid tribute to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell). I wish to do the same. His great achievement was persuading local authorities, as they have never been persuaded before, to appreciate their responsibility towards the provision of
844
recreational facilities. It was a considerable achievement.
I do not agree with the strictures of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about the new Sports Council. An independent Sports Council, such as my hon. Friend is now proposing, will be able to create a new climate of opinion towards sports provision. It will be able to influence the Government. I have heard some people express the fear that the Government may be putting a millstone around their neck by setting up an independent Sports Council because it will be able freely to criticise the Government whenever it wishes. But it will be able to influence local authorities, voluntary clubs and sports bodies, and to exert influence by the very fact that it has the power to give or withhold grant aid.
I, too, was concerned, and to some extent I still am, about grants for local sports clubs, although I have been considerably reassured by my hon. Friend's comments. Few people who have not been on a local authority appreciate the pressure on local authorities to spend money on many different items. Local authorities have an enormous number of discretionary powers which they would like to use, but which they cannot use simply because they do not have the necessary resources. On the other hand, there are many enlightened authorities, such as my own in Wiltshire, which for many years have given grant aid to sports clubs and which will consider to do so. I hope that the example of counties such as Wiltshire will encourage others to follow suit.
The Amendment notes with approval the intention to continue support for the youth service and to ensure that it is used effectively. I should be horrified if it were not intended to continue to support it, but how does one ensure that the support is effectively used? This is becoming more and more difficult, because an increasingly important part of the work of the youth service is among those who are termed the unattached, those who are away from the statutory or voluntary youth service provision. How can the effect of the youth service on such people be quantified?
In the old days, the youth service was a direct influence on the younger generation in clubs and youth centres and so on,

845
and it still is up to a point, but increasingly it has an indirect and more subtle influence on ground of the choosing of the young people, out in the community, and it is therefore rather a pity that the Government have decided not to change the name "Youth Service" to "Youth Community Service". They may have made this decision because they have brought to bear a purely educational view. I wonder if the same result would have occurred if the social services department and the Home Office had been involved in consideration of the matter. Nowadays, the Home Office and the social services department are closely involved in this area of policy.
Talking about involvement, the report said that 29 per cent. of the age group is involved with the youth service. I have heard it rumoured that, according to a Government social survey at one time or another no fewer than 69 per cent. had some connection with it. If that is so, it would put a different complexion on the support which the service receives.
Before any major decision about the youth service is made my hon. Friend should look at experience in Europe. What is done in Europe originated from the lead given by this country after the war. In numerous respects the Continent is far ahead of us. If, as seems likely, we go into the Common Market—and I hope that we will—it will be worth remembering that in both France and Germany £2 million a year is spent on youth exchanges.
I do not think the Government should consider "hiving-off" the responsibility for grants in the youth service. I am all for simplifying the system, but that should not mean passing the buck. If the Government want to hive off responsibility for grants, as we already have an Arts Council and are now to have a sports council, perhaps consideration could be given to having a youth council with responsibility for giving aid to voluntary organisations.
I turn now to unemployment among school leavers. This autumn it may be a problem. I would ask my hon. Friend to do all he can to ensure close cooperation between the youth employment service and the youth service so that, for example, youth clubs can be kept open for as long as possible during the day so as to ensure that unemployed school
846
leavers have somewhere to go to fill in their time thus avoiding alienation of young people.
9.03 p.m.
Mr. Frank Judd: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) has had to say. To much of it I would say "Hallelujah". I am sorry that in his final remarks he gave the impression that perhaps the best course for the Government to take to deal with unemployment among school leavers was to provide better youth club facilities for them. The best solution is for the Government to create the job opportunities as quickly as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also drew attention to the paucity of resources available for youth exchanges on an international basis as compared with what is available in other European countries. I know from my own direct experience in this work, before entering this House, that one of the difficulties is the legal problem. By definition education is only something which happens to British children within the frontiers of Britain. If we believe that one of the elements of education is to prepare people for a wider sense of international understanding and contact with others in countries near to us geographically then by definition we must spend money bringing these people together. We must make progress in this direction.
In the short time available it is possible to draw attention to only a few points unless one hogs more than one's share of the time. I hope that this brief debate, crammed into a few hours at the end of an evening in Opposition time, is not an indication of the lack of attention, concern and priority which the Government afford to this important and vital social sphere.
It is some years since I was working professionally in the youth service. What distresses me most at the moment is the total breakdown in confidence between so many voluntary organisations and the Government—the feeling that there is no adequate consultation. That cannot be put too strongly. There is a feeling of high-handedness on the part of the Department—a feeling of a lack of sensitivity and of taking into account the experience, feelings and hopes of the

847
people who are doing this work in so many organisations.
I want to pick out one or two points which appear to be at the centre of the Government's thinking about the future of the youth service. We hear that they will put more emphasis on de-centralisation. People should not necessarily reject the concept of more importance being placed on the direct relationship between local authorities and the youth work that goes on in a local area, but we must take on board the real anxiety that exists among organisations about the possibility that, as a result, they will fall to the bottom of the priority list in terms of local authority expenditure and that at a time when local authorities are faced with financial stringency right across the board the resources will not be available for the sort of important and exciting work that should be done.
We also understand that the Government will concentrate a good deal more on channelling resources into the deprived areas. The real fear amongst people in youth organisations is not that this should happen ; they are delighted that it should happen. But they fear that it will happen by way of economies in other spheres where important and successful youth work is going on. The Government must reassure youth organisations on that point.
The other thing about which there is a great deal of worry among those who are carrying the main burden is the Government's announcement that there is to be a review of the effectiveness of work at national and local level, particularly in respect of voluntary organisations which have financial arrangements with the Government. People are not against the concept of a review ; they would welcome one. But they feel that if it is to be successful it is essential to retain the confidence of the people who have carried the main burden, and will go on doing so. This means that it must be an independent inquiry, set up after the fullest possible discussions with all concerned—an independent inquiry which has the confidence of both sides.
Another concern that I frequently come across is the feeling that the Government are becoming too rigid in respect of the age range with which they say
848
they are primarily concerned. They say that they will limit their attention to the 14–20 age group, and nothing outside. There is a feeling among those who have been doing the work that if the programme is to be successful there must be more flexibility at both ends.
I know that the Government are making almost a fetish, even in youth work, of the idea of organisations standing on their own two feet, but as somebody who has worked in this sphere I ask the Minister to exercise just a little imagination. Let us consider the important new development that has taken place in recent years—community service by youth. Has the Minister imagined the agonies among young people who are trying to undertake useful social work in the community when they find it increasingly difficult to raise the necessary resources to finance their work, so that more and more of the time which they need for social action is taken up in trying to find the pounds with which their social action can be undertaken?
It is totally unimaginative for the Minister to suggest that youth service organisations will gain an enhanced status if they can stand on their feet. The Government should be saying about these young people, "This is a sound social investment, in terms of the service they are providing ; it is a sound social investment, in terms of the education of the young people involved. We will give more urgent attention to providing the financial resources which will enable this programme to expand". This parsimonious, miserly attitude which seems to be creeping into the Government's approach is very alarming.
It is not good enough to reject all the specialist work done in previous years. It is time that we had a White Paper setting out the Government's thoughts on the development of the youth service. Such a White Paper would provide an ideal opportunity to take into account the relevant and important views of the Home Office and other Government Departments concerned with the social problems intimately related to the new type of development in youth work. Until we have the opportunity to debate a coordinated presentation of the Government's thinking, we shall be pecking away at the problem in a totally inadequate fashion.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: I am the third ex-chairman of a regional sports council who has spoken in the debate. I wish to add to the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Health (Mr. Denis Howell), who started the Sports Council. Although I did not agree with some of its methods, it was a beginning of which the hon. Gentleman has the right to be proud.
What I found particularly frustrating when I was chairman of a regional sports council was the way in which everything done had to be advisory. We had to spend a great deal of time trying to get local authorities on-side. The regional sports council, and indeed the Sports Council itself, had no powers. It seems that the new Sports Council will have direct powers to grant money and that it will be given teeth. I hope that very soon we shall have some indication about where the regional sports council will fit in.
I support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) that we should have a White Paper on the sports councils and recreation. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of bringing in other Departments and obtaining a co-ordinated series of views. We could see in such a White Paper what was planned and where the regional sports councils fitted in. It is most important that the work that they have done—the preliminary surveys of facilities and the opportunities in their regions for joint ventures—should not be wasted but should be co-ordinated under Dr. Bannister's Sports Council so that the maximum use can be made of sports facilities. As what is referred to as the Fourth Wave—the wave of leisure—progresses, sports facilities will be used almost round the clock, at least until late at night.
I wish to make the plea that the new Sports Council should pay particular attention to minority sports. In view of the high cost of some of these sports, it is becoming increasingly difficult to provide the necessary facilities and facilities for training. I hope that sports like fencing will get a fair crack of the whip from the new Sports Council.
In conclusion, I welcome the fact that the Government are now dealing at arms'
850
length with sport and are not directly interfering with it. We must all watch like hawks to make sure that the funds which are made available are increased over the years to come.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the political umpire, and I shall try in our limited time tonight to act as a 100 metres runner rather than a 10,000 metres runner. We have had a useful and very important debate. All of us who have been overseas will know the importance of international sport, and I shall touch on that in a moment. Many people are brought close to it through television. There were the European Games at Athens. There was our nation of 50 million people represented and third ; the Soviet Union, with 200 million second. But who won the Games? A nation which has not yet been given de jure status—East Germany. Its flag was flying there and, through the television, for all the nations of the world to see. It is a small State of 18 million people, but very important politically. It is important that we should show the flag, not in the old-fashioned sense at the masthead of a battleship, but at athletics meetings, at international games, Olympics and so forth.
I represent Hull, where they work hard and they play hard. We have sportsmen—boxers, Rugby League players, besides soccer. I inquired of the people on Humberside to find out what they knew about this new Sports Council, and I found that they knew little or nothing about it. So we come to the magic word "participation" which is in vogue in local government and which is in vogue in international affairs. Where has been the participation in this case—at Leeds or Hull or elsewhere? Indeed, one of the councillors in my constituency told me that he had not even heard about what is happening. So we fault the Minister here, for his lack of thought, for his insensitivity, his lack of democracy, for behaving in almost a fascist or totalitarian sense, almost imposing upon sport his idea which, he said earlier, was put in the Conservative election manifesto. The whole thing was in his mind quite a long while ago. One of the unhappy features for people in the localities is that this new set-up is imposed upon them.

851
In an earlier exchange we had the Minister and a former Minister almost like Cassius Clay versus Joe Frazier, one saying, "I did", and the other, "I did not". I should like a White Paper not, as is usual, about the future, but about the past, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) did. The facts must be there, and we should have the evidence before us. We who have been here during the last six years know what has happened, but I should like a White Paper about this.
International sport is so important and yet we are told by the former Minister that the 66⅔ grants have gone down to 50 per cent. The Minister may like to know that sporting bodies do come to this House of Commons ; they come to see back bench Members on either side, as well as to see Ministers in their offices. What do they tell us? We heard a few moments ago about the less fashionable sports, whether international or local, swimming, skating, tennis, athletics. We are told—and we must believe these decent honourable men who tell us—that they lack money. Where is this wonderful kitty the Minister was talking about earlier—all these millions he is putting into the scales so that we can do better? Will whoever winds up the debate tell use more about the financial help which is to be given to these unfashionable or lesser known sports which were mentioned?
In the context of the outside world, publicity, knowledge and participation it is most important that the chairman, as in the past, should be a Minister. It is democratic, it opens up the councils activities and sweeps away the cobwebs to have Questions in the House. The people in Leeds or Hull via their M.P. can find out what is happening from the Minister. Here we have a non-democratic body, accountable neither to the House nor to the public, but working behind doors.
Mr. Denis Howell: With no appeal.
Mr. Johnson: With no appeal. So it is important internationally, locally and democratically that a Minister should continue to be in the chair. It gives status when the Minister, as chairman of the council, comes to a particular town ; it confers importance and lustre upon what is happening locally.
852
Dr. Bannister is a wonderful athlete. I yield to no one in my admiration for his performances. But Dr. Bannister for two days a week? It is not sufficient. This is a full-time job. I advise the Minister to think again about this, and to put a man in this job, whether or not he is an athlete, who will give his full time to the task.
What the Minister said about the money he is to spend is laudable. The last thing I want to do is to make a political cockpit of athletics and games. If the Minister wants to make a success of his job and if he wants the Opposition to think better of him than his performance tonight warrants, he had better carry out all those pledges, election or not. Let him keep those pledges so that we can say he has done a good job. We shall judge him on his performance, not on his words at the Box tonight when he has been indulging almost in a slanging match with his predecessor.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Richard Hornby: I will deal briefly with one or two points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite. First, I do not agree with the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) that the number of Questions asked here is the best test of administrative efficiency. It is, of course, a useful way of casting a spotlight, but there are other ways of doing this.
I think the status accorded to the new Sports Council is right, with two provisos. It is important that it should publish an annual report and that that report should be debated annually in the House. We can track what is being done in that way. The status of the new Sports Council is right because it has a number of points in its favour. First, the grant-aiding function is important. Funds are to be handed over to it in toto and it can start straight away on its work.
On the transitional problem of clubs which are worried about the present situation, they are naturally and understandably worried, but it would have been difficult to get the new Sports Council started in the new framework unless the slate had been wiped clean straight away and the concept of the Sports Council disbursing its own money in its own way as it thought fit had been introduced from the word "go". If

853
there had been a great time lag and a backlog of decisions, with funds being subtracted from what was available to the Sports Council, I believe the work of the new Sports Council would have been much more difficult.
The general principle of pushing decision-making outwards from politicians to sportsmen and from Westminster and Whitehall to the various local authorities is the best practice. I believe local people are able to take better decisions than we can on these matters, and I believe they can take them more quickly. There is a considerable bureaucratic delay and waste of time and valued manpower if decisions have to go backwards and forwards for approval to Westminster—decisions which could have been taken with greater local knowledge on the spot.
On the matter of membership of the Sports Council, there is always a temptation to try to represent everybody on such a body. I hope the Sports Council will resist the temptation. I hope it will choose the best people, and I hope the regional councils will produce a representative element in geographical terms. The sports bodies will then have their own voice. I feel that the Sports Council will operate best if the best people are there in their own right and if my hon. Friend does not strive to achieve to exact a representative balance.
I should like to give one word of advice to the council. I hope it will not forget the educational principles laid down by Lady Plowden about the need to remember the priority areas where the need is very great in terms of social requirement. The local authority will want to add its own voice and make its special case on such matters. I hope such authorities will be listened to when grants are disbursed.
Also to be considered is the matter of balance between national excellence and more general participation and, of course, these matters are linked. Young people wish to emulate national standards which they see on television, and there will follow a desire to participate. If, however, in the disbursement of funds the balance is tilted in a certain way, I hope it will be in favour of opportunities for people to participate in sport rather than towards national needs, particularly
854
in some of the sports which my hon. Friend mentioned which are more attractive to sponsorship and which can be assisted in that way.
I welcome what my hon. Friend said about the need to encourage fuller use of sports and recreational facilities to make them more readily available to everybody. This goes particularly for the Forestry Commission, which has done enough damage to the countryside. It owes the country a great deal in balancing the picture, despite the recreational provision it has already made. The water authorities have also been mentioned, and what remains to be done is enormous. Commercial firms can help in this respect, and there is a great need to stimulate partnership between one user and another. In conclusion, I wish Dr. Bannister great success in his task. He is an admirable choice.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. Terry Davis: I, too, wish to express concern about the effect of the Minister's decision on local sports clubs. In the area of North Worcestershire which I represent, we do not have a professional football club. We do not have an army base with sports facilities which can be developed. We do not have a reservoir available for water sports. But we do have a rapidly growing population ; a new town and a tremendous demand for recreational facilities.
The previous policy has worked very well for Worcestershire. I understand that the Worcestershire Squash Racquets Association, for example, has now developed a league as a direct result of the expansion of facilities which have flowed from the grants received from the regional council for physical recreation. We also have a great need for sports centres and especially for multi-purpose sports centres. The Minister referred to this development but it seemed to me that he was talking in national terms.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths Mr. Eldon Griffiths indicated dissent.
Mr. Davis: The Minister shakes his head, but he was talking about large-scale multi-purpose sports centres. My interest in North Worcestershire is in small sports centres. We have one which is being established and developed just outside my constituency at Droitwich.

855
That centre is in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) and is halfway through its development. The changing accommodation has been built. The cricket ground has been prepared. However, other projects will not be completed, as I understand the Minister's announcement. We have a similar proposal in Bromsgrove to convert a cricket club into a multi-sports centre. It is a small-scale centre, but it is important to the people of Bromsgrove.
As I have said, we do not have a reservoir, but we do have a new town at Redditch, where there is an embryo sailing club which proposes to use a man-made lake. Only last week, a representative of the Central Council for Physical Recreation visited Redditch to say that, as a result of the Minister's announcement, his council was unable to help with a grant. The people in Redditch who wish to establish a sailing club appear to have been told by the Minister that they should look to their local authority for help. However, the authority is already experiencing great pressure on its rates as a result of the new town development, and it is difficult to see how help can come from that quarter. Alternatively, the Minister says, the people must depend on their own efforts ; in other words, they should stand on their own feet.
The Minister referred to his party's Election promises. I assure him that the sportsmen of Worcestershire did not think that they were voting for the kind of rushed policy that the hon. Gentleman has announced. They did not realise that they were voting for a situation where his Department would inform the regional body by telephone of the Government's decision at a time when it was preparing its list of priorities. In North Worcestershire, we are extremely distressed at the hon. Gentleman's announcement.
9.32 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. The principle of having an independent council must be right, and I support it. I also agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) said about it. It is right that it should report to Parliament
856
at least once a year so that hon. Members have an opportunity to question what it has done in the past 12 months. I think that that answers the point made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
I am also very pleased that my hon. Friend has seen fit to give the council grant-aiding powers. That brings me to my second point, which concerns local councils and trusts which have been set up only to find themselves landed with the quick curtailment of grant. In my constituency there is such a body in Ashbourne. It was about to apply to the regional council for a grant. There were problems over the acquisition of land by the local authority, and for that reason it held up its application. However, the local trust had raised £20,000 for the project. A third was to come from the county, with the remainder from the local council, together with the grant from the regional sports council. The grant is available no longer, and it occurs to me to wonder whether my hon. Friend cannot follow the suggestion of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) about phasing out grants over a period of, say, 18 months. Failing that, will it be possible for the new council to take up what has been dropped as a result of the existing curtailment? I rather doubt it.
I agree with the criticism that has been made that, now that these matters are in local government hands, this kind of expenditure is liable to go to the bottom of a local authority's priorities when it is considering other important factors of spending in its district.
My hon. Friend spoke about the additional uses and priorities upon which the new council will concentrate. He said that it would try to encourage the greater use of reservoirs. There are a fair number of reservoirs in my part of the world, and it is sad that they are not more widely used. Anything that can be done to accelerate their use will be greatly appreciated by people in the areas immediately surrounding them and, indeed, by people who will come from much further afield to enjoy the facilities.
There is the further problem concerning access to our national parks. I do no more than refer to it, in view of the short time remaining for the debate.

857
Finally, I raise my voice in protest at the fact that we have listened to 100 minutes of speeches from the two Front Benches out of a total debate of 150 minutes. That is not a good balance.
9.35 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Ashton: I, too, will be brief. I shall try to confine my remarks to a "four-minute mile."
The Minister's action will tend to penalise rural areas, because they depend on grants to supplement their voluntary efforts. In the Bassetlaw area, which nobody has ever heard about, we have the famous Bassetlaw cricket league. Several villages are in this league. In the 320 square miles of my constituency there are only two cinemas and one dance hall. Yet everybody is sports mad. It is virtually the only activity in which youth can take part in in a rural area. This is why it has produced players like Mick Jones and other international footballers. There is nothing to do but hunt foxes or kick a ball.
The rural areas will suffer because if a county council has money to spend it has to expend it on the best possible cost effectiveness basis. Therefore, it will spend the money in the towns and areas of dense population where more people will use, for example, a swimming pool or other facility. This is common sense. But in the rural areas the local villages with their cricket teams or youth clubs will suffer. In the past they have supplemented their facilities by writing to me asking how to get grants from the Government. I have put them on to the East Midlands Regional Sports Council and in most cases they have been successful, because they have been backed by local effort. These rural areas tend to be mainly conservative, so the Minister will find a lot of pressure put upon him by upset local bodies of opinion.
I think that the Minister's tremendous faith in local authorities is not justified. There is a system for helping them to create sports facilities, but they do not take advantage of it. I refer to derelict areas. There are many slag heaps not only in my constituency, but in others nearby. There are ponds among these slag heaps. Children are forever sailing rafts on those ponds in the summer or skating on them in winter, and often they fall in. The Sheffield Morning
858
Telegraph has run an extensive campaign to protect children from this danger. The local councils can get 75 per cent. grants towards the cost of filling in the ponds and landscaping the slag heaps to turn them into playing areas. Very few local authorities have taken advantage of this system ; it is always at the bottom of their priorities. This is the kind of setup which the Minister envisages with the co-operation of the regional sports councils. But the local authorities are not claiming the grants because they are refusing to find the other 25 per cent. They always make excuses.
Not all authorities are like that. The Nottinghamshire County Council, which is Tory-controlled, has made Holme Pier-point, an area of clayworks and derelict land which floods, into a national rowing centre where people can have Olympic sculling, and so on. The Labour Government put up about £250,000 and the Nottinghamshire County Council made the rest available. It has a first-class record in sports complexes. There is one at Bingham, which my hon. Friend opened, and another at Worksop. However, because of cost effectiveness, such facilities have to be in areas of high population, and the rural areas are therefore heavily penalised.
The Minister spoke about co-operative use of sports facilities. He is kidding himself if he thinks that he will have any success in that direction. We wish him every success. However, I cannot see two professional football teams, such as Manchester City and Manchester United, sharing the same ground or Sheffield Wednesday and Sheffield United sharing the same ground. It is obvious that there would be a tremendous saving if that could be brought about, but there has been and will be little progress because of local prejudices and antagonism between rural district and county councils over the different things involved. I hope that the Minister will re-examine the policy and see why the system of providing 75 per cent. grants to local authorities for converting slag heaps into sports facilities and play areas is failing.
9.39 p.m.
Mr. John Sutcliffe: May I put two pleas to the Minister before he winds up the debate. I have literally one minute in which to do that.

859
I speak as the chairman of a local association affiliated to the National Association of Youth Clubs, and a very worried chairman indeed. Would my hon. Friend tell me precisely what will take the place of the youth and community work referred to in the report as a guide to the youth service as a whole over the next 10 years? Would he please give an undertaking to consult whichever body he chooses to replace the Youth Service Development Council? Whether it be the Standing Conference of National Voluntary Youth Organisations, or whatever it is, will he consult it on the question of partnership, of grants, capital and headquarters, and on all the matters that are being considered? For a Conservative Government not to give all possible encouragement to voluntary youth work would be disastrous.
9.40 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Minister for Sport is candid, he will admit that he is a very uncomfortable man, because during the debate we have had a whole series of extremely serious and well-informed contributions from both sides of the House, from all parts of the country, amounting to a rather devastating criticism of what the Government are up to.
I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) had tumbled to something which perhaps the Government have not, and that is the extent to which both those responsible for the training of youth leaders and the local authorities themselves have already geared themselves to the philosophy of the Paper of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), "Youth and Community in the 70's".
I concede that that is not a perfect document. My hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath never claimed that it was—but it did at least add up to a coherent plan, and whatever minor gaps there may have been, at least it tacked the problems not so much of youth but of the "young adult" in society. The document was realistic, it was practical and, above all, it was costed.
I agree that some changes may have been necessary, but what the Secretary of
860
State for Education and Science has done has been to dismiss this concept of youth and community service without offering any alternatives whatsoever. Is there not an obligation on these Secretaries of State who suddenly change gear to select somewhat carefully their new speed and their new direction? Until now in this debate we have detected no sign that there is a new direction.
The nub and crunch of the report is that youth work is an invitation to young people to become involved in the stuggle to build a society that is just, compassionate and, indeed, participant. Is that right or wrong? If it is wrong, what would the critics put in its place.
My fear is that under the Government's proposed arrangements—and I think that the Secretary of State will take this in the way it is meant—youth work will become more and more like a pale second-rate imitation of commercial entertainment of young people, ever-dependent on the usual things—darts, dancing and table tennis—and appealing more and more only to the young male teenager, and more and more to the immature. My own experience in a previous incarnation before I came to the House of the 18 months on board a ship-school justifies the fears that I am expressing. It is only too easy for that to happen, and the present system will simply pass by many of the lively and energetic young men and women who, under an all-too-thin layer of sophistication, may be in real need of help.
What matters is that the many dedicated people, outside the House, engaged in youth work should be wiser if they read tomorrow's HANSARD, and we look to the hon. Gentleman for some sense of direction to be marked out in this debate. What has happened is that an imaginative scheme of youth work devised by my hon. Friend has been nipped in the bud. The Youth Service Development Council, given birth by Albemarle, has been brought, at the age of 10, to a somewhat premature death. Nothing, but nothing, has been put in its place. We have been left with a vacuum.
We are bound to raise the question of the independent Sports Council chairman. The Minister said that it was not good that he should be a lobbyist for funds. But, like many others, I have

861
known Roger Bannister for 10 years. He is an excellent chairman, and we know his contribution to British athletics and the track. But the notion that he can do in two days a week the job that my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath did seven days a week is simply fanciful.
This brings up the key rôle of the chairman. If he is to be seen and to talk to people and to do his job as he must, he will not have many free weekends between one Christmas and another, albeit the Minister "will assist him in his endeavours". Does the Minister recognise that there are 170 governing bodies in sport? How accessible is Dr. Bannister meant to be? If this job is to be done properly, it demands a great deal of mixing with people, and not someone who, through no fault of his own, is limited to the top of Mount Sinai, which seems to be the rôle that is being devised.
I know from Cliff Lloyd today that the Minister met the Professional Footballers Association in early June. It is now mid-July. I do not criticise the delay, but the Government must understand that the association's request for an independent tribunal with an independent, legally-qualified chairman which has wide support. It is in accord with natural justice that players should be represented on the disciplinary committee and that there should be an ability to appeal against a decision of the disciplinary committee, provided that the appeal is endorsed by the player's professional association and is not frivolous.
In my opinion, there is a principle here which goes far wider than the P.F.A. In the new set-up proposed by the Government, what provision will there be for players and participants, as opposed to governing bodies, to be represented at the highest level?
The Minister said that local authorities were less unenlightened than my hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath thought. But the Minister should place himself in the position of some hard-pressed member of a local authority at his wits' end how to balance the revenue and expenditure. They are only being human if, under the new system, they decide that there are perhaps more important priorities than expenditure on sport. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), the former
862
Secretary of State, will understand this very well.
The danger is that in authority after authority the steady and real, if undramatic, growth of local sports initiative which has been carefully built up over the last five years will lose its momentum. For example, the Minister wrote to me on 24th May, in reply to representations which we had had from the National Skating Association :
"As for the provision of facilities in this country, indoor rinks have in the past been provided by commercial companies and by local authorities."
Under the new system, what councillor in his right mind will propose any substantial funds for a new skating rink? This is just one example. More's the pity for this sport, because we as a country should take more heed of provision for girls as well as boys—and skating is one of the sports in which massive participation by girls is possible.
What bothers me is the position of the growing number of still minor sports referred to, for example, by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). Alexander Flinder, chairman of the British Sub-Aqua Club, gives this rather dour account of a meeting on 24th June, when the chairmen of the governing bodies met the hon. Gentleman to hear about the new Sports Council :
"The meeting was shocked at the implication of the Government's intention to phase out the local capital grants scheme. This excellent scheme has proved the most successful method of encouraging local enterprise, and setting up of regional sports facilities in areas which were devoid of these amenities. My own organisation, which has more than doubled its national membership in the last five years, could not have achieved this without grants towards the cost of expensive equipment installations."
This story could be repeated many times among smaller sports.
This is not the occasion for synthetic rage across the Floor, but we want the Minister to understand that there are those of us who have moved in sports circles during the last 10 years who cannot fail to detect the dampening effect of the Government's new measures on the enthusiasts who have made British sport what it is. So it is with a sense of incredulity at the short-sightedness of what is being done on the youth side and with a sense of sadness at what is being

863
done on the sports side that I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to condemn the Government tonight.
9.50 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I well understand that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was, as I am, under a close discipline of time. I am sure that he and the House will be understanding if I have to deal swiftly with the arguments which have been presented by the hon. Gentleman and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment has asked me to say on his behalf that he will wish to write to hon. Members who raised specific matters subsequently to his speech, and I hope that that will be regarded as according with the courtesies of the House.
I respond at once to the hon. Gentleman's request—I do not think it necessary, but he does—for a new direction in the youth service. Briefly, because of the time, I shall explain the new direction already signalled by my right hon. Friend's announcement which appeared in HANSARD on 29th March. With respect to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, whose temporary absence from the Chamber I regret, it is not factually correct to say that all the recommendations in the report by the Youth Service Development Council have been rejected.
As for what a good many people, such as myself in a small way, who have been closely connected with the youth world in one way or another, would regard as the grandiose conception of a centralised youth and community service based on what many, again including myself, would regard as the untried philosophy of the "active society", I make no apology for saying that that has been rejected. But, as I shall show in the few minutes available, a number of other proposals have been accepted.
It is our view that we do not require a centralised service. It follows from that, as the report itself shows, that a successor council is not necessary. Indeed, the
864
report goes out of its way to say that there would be no point in having an advisory council for its own sake.
Here are the Government's priorities. They accept a number of the priorities stated in the report. For example, they accept those for the socially deprived, in particular, early school leavers, and for the young immigrant. They accept—this is the direct answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West, for he is quite wrong in what he says, and the matter is clear in my right hon. Friend's announcement—that the age limits of 14 to 20 should be interpreted liberally in accordance with the recommendations in the report.
The point of difference is that we on this side do not accept that there is one central road to success. What we require is not splendid phrases but practical support for initiatives from wherever they come.
Under the present arrangements, as has been said, a 50 per cent. grant is paid from the centre. We are in the Department today—or, rather, we were—administering a large number of small grants. I regard this as inefficient, expensive, and inappropriate. Further, it favours the better off areas of the country at the expense of the less wealthy. The revised arrangements under discussion with both local authorities and the voluntary bodies—and no words of mine can emphasise enough the importance the Government attach to the voluntary bodies—are that from April next year the detailed supervision should be undertaken by the authorities and no longer at the centre, and that there should be a pound-for-pound grant from the centre, matching each pound made available by the authorities, with a maximum of a third. Therefore, it is open to such a project today to obtain a third from the local authority and a third from the Government, with, I believe, much better results for the project as a whole.
I accept that if I ended there and gave no more there would be overall savings. But the announcement has made it crystal clear, as has the Amendment, that the Government's intention is to maintain in real terms its support for the youth service. That means, for example, that there will still be vested in the centre the ability to provide 50 per cent. grants for the cost of a few projects of national

865
or regional importance. There will still be vested in the centre—and this is very important in the light of what was said earlier—the ability to invest in the youth service by the machinery of the urban programme, which ties in exactly with the priorities I gave earlier, and the ability to respond to experimental projects which are initiated locally, or to initiate them.
All this adds up to a new and distinct approach. Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, I do not accept for a moment the Opposition's narrow approach towards local authorities. I do not understand how a party which less than 24 hours ago was lambasting me for not giving greater freedom to local authorities is now lambasting me for giving them greater freedom. In a large number of places that freedom will serve to cement together the work of the local authorities and of the voluntary bodies, both of which are of the greatest importance. This is a very useful step forward. The social priorities can be achieved through the mechanisms of the urban programmes. In particular,
there is still vested in the centre the ability to initiate and respond to interesting developments.
In common with many other hon. Members, I have spent a considerable time in a voluntary youth organisation. I entirely accept that in some cases, regrettably, the relations between such organisations and local authorities are not good. But it is a policy of despair which proceeds on the basis that they can never be improved. The right way to improve them is to give encouragement to the local authority to make provision for its youth service by a matching pound-for-pound contribution from the centre. That is the change of emphasis. It does not require a centralised administrative machinery. It is diffusing responsibility entirely in accordance with our philosophy, and that is why I commend the Amendment to the House.
Question put, That the Amendment be made :—
The House divided : Ayes 190, Noes 161.

Division No. 433.]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Dykes, Hugh

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Astor, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Howell, David (Guildford)

Atkins, Humphrey

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Awdry, Daniel

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

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Baker, Kenneth (St. Mnrylebone)

Emery, Peer

Iremonger, T. L.

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Eyre, Reginald

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Beamish, Col. Sir. Tufton

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

James, David

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Fidler, Michael

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Benyon, W.

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Kershaw, Anthony

Biffen, John

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Kilfedder, James

Biggs-Davison, John

Fookes, Miss Janet

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Fortescue, Tim

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Body, Richard

Fowler, Norman

Kinsey, J. R.

Boscawen, Robert

Fox, Marcus

Knox, David

Bossom, Sir Clive

Fry, Peter

Lane, David

Bowden, Andrew

Gardner, Edward

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Gibson-Watt, David

Le Marchant, Spencer

Braine, Bernard

Glyn, Dr. Alan

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Bray, Ronald

Goodhart, Philip

Brewis, John

Gorst, John

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

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Gower, Raymond

Longden, Gilbert

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Loveridge, John

Bryan, Paul

Green, Alan

Luce, R. N

Buck, Antony

Grieve, Percy

McAdden Sir Stephen

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

MacArthur, Ian

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

Gummer, Selwyn

McCrindle, R. A.

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Gurden, Harold

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maddan, Martin

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Madel, David

Clegg, Walter

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Marten, Neil

Coombs, Derek

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Mather, Carol

Cooper, A. E.

Haselhurst, Alan

Maude, Angus

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Hay, John

Mawby, Ray

Cormack, Patrick

Hayhoe, Barney

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Critchley, Julian

Hiley, Joseph

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Crouch, David

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

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Moate, Roger

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

Holland, Philip

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Dean, Paul

Hornby, Richard

Monro, Hector

Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

More, Jasper

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Neave, Aircy

Ridsdale, Julian

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Trew, Peter

Normanton, Tom

Rost, Peter

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Nott, John

Russell, Sir Ronald

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

Scott, Nicholas

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Shelton, William (Clapham)

Wall, Patrick

Peel, John

Sinclair, Sir George

Ward, Dame Irene

Percival, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Warren, Kenneth

Pink, R. Bonner

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

Weatherill, Bernard

Pounder, Rafton

Soref, Harold

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Spence, John

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Sproat, lain

Wiggin, Jerry

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Stanbrook, Ivor

Wilkinson, John

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Belper)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Raison, Timothy

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Redmond, Robert

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Worsley, Marcus

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Sutcliffe, John

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Tapsell, Peter

TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Tebbit, Norman

Mr Keith Speed.

NOES

Abse, Leo

Gourlay, Harry

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Allen, Scholefield

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mulley, Rt. Hon. Frederick

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

O'Halloran, Michael

Ashton, Joe

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Oram, Bert

Atkinson, Norman

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Oswald, Thomas

Barnett, Joel

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamling, William

Palmer, Arthur

Bishop, E. S.

Hanman, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hardy, Peter

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Booth, Albert

Harper, Joseph

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Heffer, Eric S.

Pendry, Tom

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Pentland, Norman

Bradley, Tom

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Perry, Ernest G.

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

Huckfield, Leslie

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

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

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Prescott, John

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Rankin, John

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Hunter, Adam

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Carmichael, Neil

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

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

Roper, John

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Sandelson, Neville

Cohen, Stanley

Judd, Frank

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Coleman, Donald

Kaufman, Gerald

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

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Kinnock, Neil

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Lambie, David

Sillars, James

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

Latham, Arthur

Silverman, Julius

Dalyeil, Tam

Lawson, George

Skinner, Dennis

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

Leadbitter, Ted

Small, William

Davidson, Arthur

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Spearing, Nigel

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Leonard, Dick

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Stallard, A. W.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

Strang, Gavin

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Lipton, Marcus

Taverne, Dick

Deakins, Eric

Lomas, Kenneth

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Delargy, H. J.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

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

Dempsey, James

McElhone, Frank

Tinn, James

Dormand, J. D.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Torney, Tom

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mackintosh, John P.

Tuck, Raphael

Driberg, Tom

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Watkins, David

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Marks, Kenneth

Weitzman, David

Evans, Fred

Marquand, David

Wellbeloved, James

Faulds, Andrew

Marsden, F.

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Whitehead, Phillip

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Meacher, Michael

Whitlock, William

Foley, Maurice

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mendelson, John

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Freeson, Reginald

Millan, Bruce

Woof, Robert

Galpern, Sir Myer

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Garrett, W. E.

Molloy, William

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Ginsburg, David

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

Golding, John

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. James A. Dunn.

Main Question, as amended, put :—
The House divided : Ayes 190, Noes 161.

Division No. 434.]

AYES

[10.11 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Grieve, Percy

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Astor, John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Atkins, Humphrey

Gummer, Selwyn

Peel, John

Awdry, Daniel

Gurden, Harold

Percival, Ian

Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Pink, R, Bonner

Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Pounder, Rafton

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Hannam, John (Exeter)

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Benyon, W.

Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

Proud foot, Wilfred

Biffen, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Biggs-Davison, John

Hay, John

Raison, Timothy

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Hayhoe, Barney

Redmond, Robert

Body, Richard

Hiley, Joseph

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Boscawen, Robert

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

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Bossom, Sir Clive

Hill, James Southampton, Test)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Bowden, Andrew

Holland, Philip

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hornby, Richard

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Braine, Bernard

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Ridsdale, Julian

Bray, Ronald

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Brewis, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rost, Peter

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

Russell, Sir Ronald

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

Bryan, Paul

Iremonger, T. L.

Scott, Nicholas

Buck, Antony

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

James, David

Shaw, Michael (Sc'gh & Whitby)

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

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

Shellton, William (Clapham)

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

Kershaw, Anthony

Sinclair, Sir George

Chapman, Sydney

Kilfedder, James

Skeet, T. H. H.

Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Soref, Harold

Clegg, Walter

Kinsey, J. R.

Spence, John

Coombs, Derek

Knox, David

Sproat, lain

Cooper, A. E.

Lane, David

Stanbrook, Ivor

Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Cormack, Patrick

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Critchley, Julian

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Crouch, David

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

Sutcliffe, John

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Longden, Gilbert

Tapsell, Peter

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

Loveridge, John

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Dean, Paul

Luce, R. N.

Tebbit, Norman

Desdes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

McAdden, Stephen

Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

Dykes, Hugh

MacArthur, Ian

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Edwards. Nicholas (Pembroke)

McCrindle, R. A.

Trew, Peter

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

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

McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Emery, Peter

Maddan, Martin

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Eyre, Reginald

Madel, David

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

Fell, Anthony

Marten, Neil

Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Mather, Carol

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Fidler, Michael

Maude, Angus

Wall, Patrick

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

Mawby, Ray

Ward, Dame Irene

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Warren, Kenneth

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Weatherill, Bernard

Fortescue, Tim

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Fowler, Norman

Moate, Roger

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Fox, Marcus

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Wiggin, Jerry

Fry, Peter

Monro, Hector

Wilkinson, John

Gardner, Edward

More, Jasper

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Gibson-Watt, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

Glyn Dr. Alan

Neave, Airey

Worsley, Marcus

Goodhart, Philip

Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

Gorst, John

Normanton, Tom

TELLERS FOR THE AYES :

Gower, Raymond

Nott, John

Mr. Victor Goodhew and

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Mr. Keith Speed.

Green, Alan

Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

NOES

Abse, Leo

Booth, Albert

Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Carmichacl, Neil

Armstrong, Ernest

Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Ashton, Joe

Bradley, Tom

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Atkinson, Norman

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

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Barnett, Joel

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

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Cohen, Stanley

Bishop, E. S.

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

Coleman, Donald

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Pendry, Tom

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

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Pentland, Norman

Dalyell, Tam

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

Perry, Ernest G.

Darling, Rt. Hn. George

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

Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

Davidson, Arthur

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Prescott, John

Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

Judd, Frank

Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kaufman, Gerald

Rankin, John

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Kinnock, Neil

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Lambic, David

Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Deakins, Eric

Latham, Arthur

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Delargy, H. J.

Lawson, George

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Dempsey, James

Leadbitter, Ted

Roper, John

Dormand, J. D.

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Leonard, Dick

Sandelson, Neville

Driberg, Tom

Lestor, Miss Joan

Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

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

Dunn, James A.

Lipton, Marcus

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lomas, Kenneth

Sillars, James

Evans, Fred

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Silverman, Julius

Faulds, Andrew

McElhone, Frank

Skinner, Dermis

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Mackenzie, Gregor

Small, William

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mackintosh, John P.

Spearing, Nigel

Foley, Maurice

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Stallard, A. W.

Freeson, Reginald

Marks, Kenneth

Strang, Gavin

Galpern, Sir Myer

Marquand, David

Taverne, Dick

Garrett, W. E.

Marsden, F.

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ginsburg, David

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

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

Golding, John

Meacher, Michael

Tinn, James

Gourlay, Harry

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Torney, Tom

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mendelson, John

Tuck, Raphael

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

Millan, Bruce

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Watkins, David

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Molloy, William

Weitzman, David

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wellbeloved, James

Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Whitehead, Phillip

Hefter, Eric S.

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Whitlock, William

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

O'Halloran, Michael

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Oram, Bert

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Huckfield, Leslie

Oswald, Thomas

Woof, Robert

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Palmer, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES :

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Mr. William Hamling and

Hunter, Adam

Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

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

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Resolved,
That this House welcomes Her Majesty's Government's decision to fulfil its election promises by establishing an independent sports council with enhanced status, wider powers and larger funds at their disposal ; believes the
872
sports council should have wide discretion in the allocation of those funds for local and regional purposes ; and notes with approval the intention to continue support for the Youth Service and to ensure that it is used effectively.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Diplomatic and Other Privileges Bill and the Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [Lords], may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Monro.]

DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL
Considered in Committee ; reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [Lords]
Considered in Committee ; reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS LEVY
10.23 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations, 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
This small change in the arrangements for the cinematograph films levy has been recommened to me by the Cinematograph Films Council, and I feel that it is right that it should be made. I suggest that I briefly describe the effect of the Regulations, and then I shall be happy, with leave, to reply to any points or give any information which the House requires after I have heard what hon. Members say.
874
The main change proposed in the Regulations is to raise the exemption limit by which small cinemas are exempt from paying the Eady levy. It is at present £400, and the Cinematograph Exhibitors Association asked in the Council that it should be raised to £450. The Council debated the question of the levy at some length but decided that it was not wise to advise a change in the level of the levy ; but it recommended an increase in the exemption limit to £500. I personally believe this is right, and the Government have made the necessary Regulations to enable the Council's advice to become operative. I think it will help a few small cinemas which hitherto have fallen just on the wrong side of the exemption limit and it may save them from going out of business at what is admittedly a difficult time for such small cinemas.
The Regulations have been agreed by the industry as a whole and the Films Council, and I therefore commend them to the House.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Roy Mason: The hon. Gentleman was certainly brief. I hope that, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will take more time to reply to the questions which must be asked.
When Regulations of this kind come before the House the test which should be applied, when we are altering the levy exemptions and deciding whether more should be exempt or less, should be : what effect will it have upon British film production? Obviously it will have effects upon confidence in the industry, and so upon production and upon investment, and if confidence is adversely affected, not only is that bad for the industry and for all who work in it, but it will not help the cinemas either, because the volume of production will be less, and choice restricted, with a subsequent effect upon cinema audiences. I will return to that in a few moments.
First of all, from the exhibitors' point of view, cinemas have been closing at a quite rapid rate. More than 3,000 cinemas were in existence before 1960. The number had dropped to 1,772 in 1967. The cinemas had been closing at the rate of about 100 per year since that time. I wonder, first of all, whether the Minister expects any slowing down of

875
this trend because of the increased number of cinemas which will be exempt from paying the levy.
Secondly, the Minister is seeking Parliament's consent for the exemption rate in paying the levy to be raised from £400 per week to £500 per week, taking earnings on the average throughout the year, an increase of £100, but in view of inflation, labour costs, and so forth, during the last few years since the rate was changed in 1968, can the Minister say what the real increase is to be? What really is the small establishment, the seaside exhibitor, going to gain from this £100 exemption? I gather that nearly 100 more cinemas will be exempt by raising the rate of exemption figure. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how many independent cinemas will now be freed from levy and how many will be free of levy within the service.
My third point from the exhibitors' point of view is that in the 1968 levy change we also dealt with some changes in the distribution levy. I have in mind, of course, newsreels and the low-cost films. In view of the fact that labour costs have risen so much in the last few years and that the test for helping low-cost film production is based upon labour costs, I am wondering whether the Minister might give an indication to the House how low-cost film producers have fared since the 1968 alteration and whether he has any intention in due course of altering the distribution percentages again.
Production is the core of the problem. If production is endangered the independent cinemas and those on the circuits will be affected, and if there is a cutback in British film production because of a smaller yield from the levy, not only will choice be limited but the quota will be in jeopardy. From the film producers' point of view a reduction of the levy by exempting more cinemas could be a direct threat to production. By exempting more cinemas, investment in the industry is likely to be less attractive, especially in British productions, and, following the hon. Gentleman's statement about gradually withdrawing Government finance from the British film industry, this constitutes a double blow to British film production.
876
If, because of this, there is a reduction in film production, our export earnings will be adversely affected and enthusiasm for American investment will be dampened. These are adverse effects that could quickly flow from the exemptions announced by the Minister. Because we agreed when in office that the National Film School should take a share of the levy fund, there will be still less money available for British production.
In the past 12 months there has been a distinct change in Government policy towards the film industry. It seems to be a policy of madness. Does the hon. Gentleman realise where this policy is leading? He must be trying deliberately to kill British film production. His impositions on the National Film Finance Corporation and the reduction of its loan-making powers, allied to less money from the levy, are bound to affect production, employment, and the use of studios, and to lessen confidence in the future of the British film industry. That is a daunting prospect for all in the film industry.
I gather that the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association asked for the exemption minimum to be raised from £400 to £450. Why did the hon. Gentleman agree to £500? Why did the Cinematograph Films Council recommend £500?
At the end of 1969 there were 1,581 cinemas. The cinemas that were exempt from paying the levy because their takings were less than £400 per week numbered 706. This new exemption limit will release another 96 cinemas, bringing the total exemptions to 802. That means that more than half the cinemas in the country will not be paying anything towards British film production, and there will be a further loss of £76,000 to the British film producer.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a little time to answer those queries. I am not satisfied that the Regulations are in the interests of the producers and exhibitors as a whole and, therefore, this change does not meet with my approval.
10.34 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In the ordinary course of events it is possible that the change which is proposed in these Regulations, which is of a relatively minor character, might have escape detailed criticism in the House,

877
but my right hon. Friend has made it clear that this is not the ordinary course of events.
The Regulations are placed before the House in circumstances in which the Under-Secretary of State has become a monster in the eyes of the British film industry. He is quoted in the today's "Cinema"—dated Friday, 19th July—as saying that it is not the Government's policy to put money into industries, especially industries like this which have no strategic or defence implications. [HON. MEMBERS : "Hear, hear."] The implications behind that statement are appalling. This is philistinism run rampant because it is the policy of the Government, according to the hon. Gentleman, to be concerned only with putting money into defence and strategic industries and to be totally unconcerned with anything outside that sector. I doubt whether others among his hon. Friends will be quite so carried away by his remarks as those present seem to be. Some hon. Members opposite do not follow him in the policy which he expressed in that statement.
This Order has the effect in a minor way of transferring some of the money—failing to transfer it would, perhaps, be a more correct way of putting it—from exhibition into production, which is the effect of the levy. It is a redistribution of money within the film industry. It is in this case a matter not of the Government using public money but of approving the redistribution of money within the industry. The Order provides that a little less money shall go towards production and that a little more money shall remain in exhibition.
In the normal course of events, one might have said that this is a relatively minor matter. But what troubles many people is the odd sense of priorities which the Government show. This in itself is a fairly small change but the hon. Gentleman announced a most major change the other day. He chose to do so in a Written Answer put down by a stooge on the benches opposite. It was a cowardly thing to do and discourteous to the House. By doing it in that way, he succeeded in avoiding a debate on the subject. I shall not be able to travel too far along what should be the real subject of this debate—the bigger change he announced then—because I am bound
878
to confine my remarks very largely to this Order and I do not want to overstrain your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but there should be an opportunity to debate not only this Order but the major change in policy in the decision to withdraw Government finance from the British film production industry. That decision is a very disturbing element and this Order is a small step in the same direction.
Apparently, the National Film Finance Corporation is to be wound up, although it is a most valuable source of finance for British films and has kept the industry alive during a very difficult period and has thus made a valuable contribution to exports. If that is the policy of the Government, then changes such as that announced in this Order will be of relatively minor character because we shall have a position in which the film industry, which has contributed much to our country, not only culturally and artistically but in terms of the balance of payments, will gradually run down.
I hope, therefore, that the Chair will be as kind to the hon. Gentleman as it has been to me when he comes to reply and will allow him to widen the debate, because he certainly should give some explanation of the more drastic change of policy which he has hitherto avoided dealing with in the House. There is a state of considerable alarm in the British film industry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will try tonight to do something to put at rest the worst fears which he has aroused since he became responsible for expressing Government policy towards the industry.
Mr. Ridley: By leave of the House, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) rightly considered that the yardstick for this change should be whether it is good for the industry. What is good for the industry is what is good for the industry's customers, the cinemagoers, and the ultimate test of whether a policy of protection for the British film production industry is correctly ordered is whether it can secure maximum audiences and thus maximum size and maximum employment against its many dominant competitors, such as television and other forms of entertainment.
In considering whether the exemption limit should be raised, therefore, the first

879
consideration is whether leaving the exemption limits at the present £400 level will cause some cinemas to close, which will be bad not only for the industry, but, equally important, for the cinema-goers. It will, of course, result in a loss of revenue to the industry.
It was for these reasons that the C.F.C. thought that an increase in the exemption limit of the levy would benefit the industry as a whole. This was a unanimous decision by the Council, although it disputed other suggestions and has not passed them on to me. Therefore, if the whole industry is in favour of the change, it is likely to be right.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me what was the rate of closure of cinemas and whether it would be changed by the Order. I confirm his figure, that cinemas have been closing at the rate of about 100 a year. We expect that the Order will mean that fewer cinemas will close in future than would otherwise have been the case. But it would be rash, indeed almost impossible, to forecast numbers, because this depends on the quality of films and the habits of cinemagoers. Indeed, I have never seen a figure that I could suggest to the House.
It is also hard to say how many cinemas the Order will free from paying the levy. This also depends on how many people go to the marginal cinemas in small towns, and that is impossible to estimate. But the effect on the levy is estimated to be small.
In 1964–65 the yield of the levy was about £4·6 million. Following the changes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, it fell to about £4 million in 1968–69. It has been growing since then, and if no change is made during the current year, we expect it will yield about £4½ million. That is getting near the statutory ceiling of £5 million, and it is likely that this change in the levy will reduce it by—to quote one estimate I have heard—about £76,000, which is tiny compared to the yield. Therefore, I think it will have hardly any effect upon the amount of money which is available to come back to the producers, because the levy is growing not much more slowly than the reduction which the Order will cause.
880
We have no plans for altering the distribution pattern. It will always be this Government's intention to consult the C.F.C. on matters to do with the levy. We have had the annual consideration of this for this year and I would expect that we would wait for another year before we considered any changes. But, of course, it is possible that circumstances will change rapidly, and I would not preclude the possibility of looking at it again in a year if circumstances are different.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) favoured the idea of trying to use the levy to keep this country's film industry as large as possible. If the levy is too high on cinema seats, on which it is paid, it will have the effect of frightening off the audience, who might find some cheaper form of entertainment, and that could positively damage the interests of the industry as a whole. So we have to find the right balance between the reasonably priced seat and the need to collect some levy to recycle into the industry.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman seem to think that there is some crisis of confidence in the industry. I do not believe that this is so. If it is, then I do not believe that it is justified. There has indeed been a slight increase in the number of films produced in this country, and prospects are by no means as black as they have at times been in the past. It is always difficult to gauge in an industry which is declining year after year due to losing business to other forms of entertainment, but I see nothing in the present situation which would justify the pessimism and gloom which came from the other side of the House.
Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman seem to think that the remarkable opportunity which has been given to the National Film Finance Corporation to help the industry is in some way not in its favour. The Opposition are totally wrong about this. Surely, to have a sum, which we hope will reach a total of £4 million, available for financing films is a shot in the arm, not a stab in the back. It seems extraordinary that this should be misrepresented as something which will

881
damage the industry. Indeed, if the total is raised, the N.F.F.C. will have more money than had it drawn the last remaining amount in the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman put through Parliament last year. I do not think that the Opposition's argument will stand up.
I think the whole House will be delighted if the consortium comes into existence and its money comes not from the taxpayer or from the State but from the private sector.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Labour Government made available a sum of up to £5 million and that what he is putting forward as an improvement is the decision on his part to make £1 million of that available, and that in itself subject to a condition which did not exist under the previous Administration? Therefore, so far from being, as it were, a kindly uncle, he is regarded in the industry as something in the nature of an ogre.
Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is regarded not only in the industry but in this House as somebody who does not do his homework. He should realise that the N.F.F.C. had £1½ million before the consortium came into existence, that it can get up to £1 million from the Government for the formation of the consortium, and that we have also guaranteed £700,000 worth of existing moral commitments for the future. That, if the hon. Gentleman can add, is £3.2 million out of the £5 million which the Labour Government voted the N.F.F.C. to last for 10 years. If that is not generous—perhaps too general—use of the taxpayers' money, I do not know what is.
The hon. Gentleman must also do his homework on the setting up of the N.F.F.C. He will recall that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition set up the N.F.F.C. in 1948 and issued a stern warning that it was to be an existence for only five years, after which time the film industry had to get its money from commercial sources as there would be no question of continuing its life thereafter. If I am accused of being a philistine, what the hon. Gentleman must think about the Leader of the Opposition I do not know. Perhaps he would care to read the debate when the right hon. Gentleman introduced the N.F.F.C. some time ago.
882
I do not believe that the industry has anything to fear. The happy marriage of public and private finance in the N.F.F.C. gives it a glorious opportunity to accustom private finance to investing in films and, I hope, make money in the process. I am sure that the House wishes the consortium well.
I believe that this small change in the levy regulations will keep open some cinemas which might not otherwise survive. I believe, too, that it will not affect production, because only a small amount of money is involved. This is what the industry wants. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be so suspicious or unhappy about something which has been brought forward at the request of the industry, and which I confidently believe will be to its benefit.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

P.A.Y.E. CENTRES (INQUIRY FACILITIES)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fortescue.]
10.50 p.m.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity of raising on the Adjournment this important question of free telephone access by taxpayers to the centres which deal with their tax affairs.
May I start by expressing the appreciation of hon. Members of the work done by tax officials. We are not critical of the officials. I understand that the amount of work with which they have to cope and the small number of officials available to do it result in massive problems for them.
Nor do we criticise the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I understand that the hon. Gentleman writes to hon. Members at the rate of about 7,000 letters a year. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may be adding to that total. So that is quite a prodigious output.

883
Tax centres collectively deal with about 3 tons of mail per week, and as many of the letters represent complaints, we in no way minimise the job that the tax officials are doing, but that is not the issue that I want to raise tonight. The issue that I want to raise is the complaint by taxpayers that they feel frustrated when they try to get their problems resolved.
Our whole tax system is in the process of being computerised, and this must, of necessity, mean the concentration of tax offices into about seven or eight centres where computers will be used and the relevant files stored. I understand that a centre like the one at East Kilbride will deal with the affairs of about 3 million taxpayers. One can appreciate, therefore, that many problems are likely to arise, and my remarks tonight are directed at an attempt to find a solution to some of the difficulties that may be encountered. I have discussed the East Kilbride centre with my colleagues from Scotland, and they have expressed their appreciation of the service that they get from it.
I understand that on 7th December the Minister referred to bus loads of taxpayers travelling the 12 miles from Glasgow to East Kilbride and being met by an army of officials, merely because they were not able to find an easy way of communicating with the tax centre, either by telephone, or through the local inquiry office that had been set up in Glasgow.
One can readily understand from that the problems which exist all over the country. For every taxpayer who would have to travel 12 miles, there are many others who would have to travel a much greater distance in order to speak to someone who has the relevant papers and can discuss problems with individual tax payers. I understand, for example, that the centres dealing with P.A.Y.E. for the whole of the South-East, including London, are scattered anywhere between Southampton and Edinburgh.
From those facts, one can appreciate that communications are very important. If we are to avoid the recurring frustration which is expressed by many infuriated taxpayers, a scheme must be devised which gives them access to their tax officials either by means of a free
884
telephone service or by some other method which is cheap, effective and efficient, so that they may get simple answers to what are very often simple problems.
My attention has been drawn to the difficulties involved by trade unionists who complained to their trade union branches that they found it increasingly difficult to get answers to coding problems. That is the main area in which I am concerned, and I am advocating some sort of free telephone access to the computer centres with a view to finding a solution to these simple coding problems.
A worker may change his job, or there may be some adjustment necessary in his claim for allowances. Often he ends up being given an emergency code number. For a short time, or what is supposed to be a short time, he is paying excessive tax which frequently he can ill afford. It imposes a great strain on his family. The process of writing letters to a far-distant tax centre often involves the taxpayer in a wait of many weeks before he gets a reply. Even then it may not give him the code number to which he is entitled.
We know of the demands from many taxpayers for a better system. As Members of Parliament, we are concerned to ensure that the advantages of computerising the tax system are not dissipated by the creation of some far-off bureaucracy which denies taxpayers the right of access to those who are dealing with their affairs. We have discussed many of these difficulties in previous debates. To cut a long story short, perhaps I might quote from some documents recording the discussions which have been held.
The first of them is the Report of the 1968–69 Estimates Committee. Paragraph 62 recommends :
"The Chief Inspector of Taxes stated in relation to the P.A.Y.E. centres that 'employers are provided with free telephone access direct to the computer centre. We shall try to encourage the taxpayer to write wherever possible'. Your Committee recommend that facilities for free telephone access to the P.A.Y.E. centres should be made available to all taxpayers, with a view to saving time and improving understanding."
That was a clear recommendation. It was put before various Treasury Ministers in the last Government. It was also submitted to the working party which had been set up and which has been trying

885
since to come to some conclusion as to how best to overcome all these problems.
Going back a little further, I refer to a book which was published in 1965 by Sir Alexander Johnston, the head of the Inland Revenue. At that time, he was under the impression that special telephone facilities had been provided to enable employers and employees to get in touch with the "London provincial" offices. In the same book he went on to outline the possibility of providing similar facilities for all taxpayers throughout the country. Indeed, from a reading of that book one would gain the impression that Sir Alexander Johnston was convinced—as I was as a result of my own inquiries—that these facilities existed for everyone.
On 7th December, 1970, the Minister seemed to confirm that impression. I do not wish to misrepresent what he said, so I shall quote his words :
"But we always recognised that remoteness was a major disadvantage of computerisation, and the Inland Revenue has now for some time had a working party looking into the whole question of P.A.Y.E. inquiry facilities, the adequacy of existing arrangements, whether proper publicity is being given to them and whether improvements are necessary."
In response to some pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), the hon. Gentleman added :
"He"—
that is, my hon. Friend—
"will know that when the first tax districts, dealing with taxpayers in London, moved out of London to the provinces the Inland Revenue initially made use of the free phone facility. The difficulty with this facility was that it proved to be very expensive even when available only to employers. The hon. Gentleman asked also about abuse of the facility. Although the abuse was not great, and I would not seek to put much weight on it, there were employees who learned the number and were thus able to make free telephone calls themselves to which they were not entitled, although they were entitled to make calls for the cost of a local call."
That has been the story, repeated by Ministers at various times, and certainly confirmed by the hon. Gentleman's predecessor to me when I made inquiries. I understood that all taxpayers in the country had a right to telephone their tax centre for the cost of a local call, whether they lived in London and the South-East and they were ringing Edin-
886
burgh, Manchester, Newcastle, or wherever it might be.
In the same speech on 7th December the hon. Gentleman said :
"As we see this concentration develop, the cost of a free phone service could become very considerable, and I will only say now that the working party will give very close consideration to what the Select Committee recommended. We are anxious that taxpayers should have all reasonable facilities for making contact with the computer centre, but this must have some regard to the cost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1970 ; Vol. 808, c. 128.]
Basically, that is the case which I am making. What progress has been made in looking into this question? Are we any further towards providing the kind of facilities which were recommended?
Judging from conversations which I have had with colleagues in the House, I should say that the majority opinion of hon. Members is that these free telephone facilities should be given to all taxpayers. I am certain that a simple scheme could be devised. I have spoken to telephone engineers, and they see no difficulty which cannot be overcome, except, perhaps, the problem of cost. They see no difficulty which would prevent an arrangement whereby a local telephone number was made known so that taxpayers anywhere in the country could ring that number and be put through on a direct link to the computer centre dealing with their affairs. That does not seem an insuperable problem in our modern age. There are other methods for doing it.
Why are the Government so complacent about this problem? What have they done in the meantime? Have they tried to accelerate the work of the working party to make some recommendations so that taxpayers can have this facility? What has happened since the working party started to consider the problem? What conclusions has it reached? Can the hon. Gentleman offer taxpayers a way to solve their problems by giving them easy access to those dealing with their tax troubles?
11.5 p.m.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): May I begin by expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for the tribute he paid to the officials of the Inland Revenue who run our tax

887
system. It was very well deserved, because, as I said in the debate on 7th December last year, the House has imposed major burdens on the Inland Revenue, and its staff grapple with them manfully.
This debate has been well-timed. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter tonight, for our short debate gives me the opportunity to tell the House of the results of the Inland Revenue working party to which he referred and which I spoke about briefly in the debate on 7th December. It has been looking into the whole question of P.A.Y.E. inquiry facilities, the adequacy of existing arrangements and the publicity about them, and whether improvements are necessary.
There is no doubt, as the hon. Gentleman rightly recognised, of the problems caused by the decentralisation of tax offices out of London and one or two other major cities, part of the Government's dispersal policy which started in 1959 in relation to tax offices and what was intended as the concentration into new P.A.Y.E. computer centres—the programme has been suspended for the time being pending the inquiry into the future of the whole P.A.Y.E. system. Both these developments greatly increased the problems of communication between taxpayers and the offices responsible for their affairs. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will know that we dealt with this at considerable length on 7th December in connection with East Kilbride. Although in that debate I referred briefly to the history of the dispersal and to the arrangements made to ensure that taxpayers continue to receive a satisfactory local service, it may be helpful if I briefly touch on the main facts again.
When the P.A.Y.E. work was first moved out of London to the new London provincial tax offices—the first phase was 1959–62—it was felt right to offer what would perhaps now be regarded as a fully gold-plated service. It was thought right to provide employers with entirely free telephone access to the provincial districts and to allow their employees to telephone those offices for the cost of a local call. The provision of free telephone calls for employers was thus extended to cover successively London provincial dis-
888
tricts 1–11. But, unhappily, those facilities turned out to be far more expensive than had been estimated, and it was decided that for subsequent London provincial districts no special telephone facilities could be provided and that the right answer was to establish local inquiry offices in London to which taxpayers and their employers could refer their inquiries.
For employees the out-of-area local code call facilities, as the service was called, also proved very costly and was curtailed. It remains today—and this is where some confusion has arisen—only for two of the London provincial districts, London provincial 2 at Manchester, and London provincial 3 at Bradford. In the case of all other London provincial districts there are no facilities for calls at local call charges.
The Inland Revenue decided instead that a satisfactory service at a substantially reduced cost could be provided for taxpayers if special inquiry offices were set up in the London area. There are principal inquiry offices in London which are linked by Telex to the majority of the London provincial districts. Those offices are in Finsbury Square and Baker Street. They can obtain a reply very quickly to pass on to the taxpayer if he telephones that inquiry office in London or calls to make a personal visit. In addition, there are some 12 or 13 London tax districts which serve as district inquiry offices for their locality.
In regard to Scotland where the first and, so far, the only operating computing centre is working, at East Kilbride, similar arrangements were made. Principal inquiry offices have been set up in Glasgow and Edinburgh, which are linked to Centre 1 by Telex. In addition, a further 28 other inquiry offices have been set up in existing tax offices all over Scotland. At these offices advice and general explanations about codings and assessment notices can be given and forms for claiming allowances obtained. That is the present position.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In the light of the Scottish experiment, would the hon. Gentleman recommend the extension of this system to other parts of the country and does he consider it reasonably satisfactory?
Mr. Jenkin: I am coming to that. I turn now to the result of the working

889
party to which I referred briefly before the hon. Member for West Lothian came into the Chamber. The hon. Member for Tottenham suggested that taxpayers could telephone their local inquiry offices and be put through direct to the London provincial district or to the centre which deals with their affairs. This is not the case. It is only in the case of two particular London provincial districts that the original cheap telephone facility introduced in the early years still obtains. We are still studying whether that facility should continue.
For many taxpayers by far the most satisfactory way of dealing with their tax complaints is by a face-to-face inquiry. Increasingly it has been found that the most satisfactory method, if the taxpayer's file is needed, is for him to give a local inquiry office a few days' notice, the office acquires the file from the relevant tax office, and an official from the local inquiry office can discuss the person's affairs with the papers before them. There is some evidence to suggest that a telephone call for an ordinary taxpayer—and many people find an understanding of the tax system difficult—when the official and the taxpayer may not have before them the same document often increases problems rather than diminishes them.
At present there are no means by which the inquiry office can transfer a call from a taxpayer to another office, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recommendation of the Fifth Report of the Select Comittee on Estimates that free telephone access should be available to all taxpayers. This was dealt with in the observations of the then Chancellor the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
For the reasons I have explained, in view of the extensive and growing provision of local access by means of inquiry offices, it was considered that further provision of free telephone facilities was not necessary and that the cost could not be justified. However, as I told the House on 7th December, this was reviewed by an Inland Revenue working party which looked at the whole question of the adequacy of P.A.Y.E. inquiry facilities.
It made a comprehensive review of the arrangements and looked again at the
890
case for reintroducing free or subsidised telephone access to the London provincial districts and the computer centres. There was a clear recognition in the report that further improvements were needed, but it found that the cost of a free or subsidised telephone service would be very heavy indeed, probably running into several million pounds.
Mr. Atkinson: Would the hon Gentleman repeat that figure?
Mr. Jenkin: Several million pounds. I pressed the officials of the Inland Revenue on this and they assured me that their studies showed that if these facilities were available and were to be regarded as the principal or substantial avenue of contact between the taxpayer and the district offices out of London, the cost would run into several million pounds.
It also found from a survey of callers at a number of offices that nearly 80 per cent. of all inquiries could be dealt with satisfactorily without recourse to the taxpayer's file. All he wants is a form on which to report a child being born, or that he has got married and that he is claiming marriage allowance, or that he has changed his job. His file is not needed for that and the inquiry office can give him the form and he can send it to the tax office. Furthermore, many of the taxpayers who need the greatest help understand tax affairs better if they had a face-to-face contact rather than trying to do it by telephone. Therefore, whether or not one has a free phone arrangement, local inquiry offices would still be necessary to deal with that kind of case.
The working party also had regard to the need for security, and the hon. Gentleman will see the significance of this in view of recent revelations about the ease with which the telephone may be used to get details of an individual taxpayer's affairs. Internally the Revenue now has what it hopes are nearly watertight procedures, but if there were to be large numbers, tens of thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of calls a year, the dangers to security would be obviously considerable. Therefore, what the working party recommended as the right course was to develop and improve the system of local inquiry offices and not to introduce free telephone access.

891
Hon. Members will be glad to learn that we have accepted the recommendation to improve and extend the whole system of P.A.Y.E. inquiry offices where the work is removed to a remote office either as the result of dispersal, or because of the computer programme. The number of specialised principal inquiry offices is to be increased, and staff will be specially trained. They will come under direct head office control. We shall concentrate first on the London area, where two extra principal inquiry offices are already being set up in Victoria and Soho, and on Scotland. We are also considering extending Telex to other inquiry offices. Our aim is to encourage both staff and taxpayers to regard the P.A.Y.E. inquiry offices as places where the great majority of their inquiries may be dealt with speedily and satisfactorily
I know that there will be some disappointment where people have been led to expect and hope that there would be a free telephone service but I have little
892
doubt that as a result of our further study a full service will be secured when we have established these further local inquiry offices not only in London but eventually in other parts of the country where the tax office dealing with a taxpayer's affairs is remote from the area where he lives or works. This will encourage people to meet their tax officer face to face with papers in front of them, and when explanation and understanding are necessary, experience shows that this is the most satisfactory way to get them.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for having raised this subject and giving me the opportunity to give this explanation, and I hope that it will be an encouragement to those taxpayers now finding it difficult sometimes to achieve the right sort of contact with their tax officer, and give them hope that help is on the way.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Malta
  Malta
  TAVR
  TAVR
  Overseas Personnel (Information to Next-of-Kin)
  Overseas Personnel (Information to Next-of-Kin)
  Service Pay
  Service Pay
  Beira Patrol
  Beira Patrol
  Ashdene Drive, Belfast (Army Garage)
  Ashdene Drive, Belfast (Army Garage)
  Officer Cadets
  Officer Cadets
  Malta (41 Commando Group)
  Malta (41 Commando Group)
  Naval Housing, Barrow-in-Furness
  Naval Housing, Barrow-in-Furness
  Exocet Missile
  Exocet Missile
  N.A.T.O. European Defence Improvement Programme
  N.A.T.O. European Defence Improvement Programme
  S.R.A.A.M. 100 Missile
  S.R.A.A.M. 100 Missile
  Harrier Aircraft (Ship Trials)
  Harrier Aircraft (Ship Trials)
  Helicopters (R.A.F. Purchase)
  Helicopters (R.A.F. Purchase)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Women Jurors
  Women Jurors
  Drugs Offences
  Drugs Offences
  Race Relations (Research)
  Race Relations (Research)
  Newham (Access for Public Service Vehicles)
  Newham (Access for Public Service Vehicles)
  Mr. Girish Sovjani
  Mr. Girish Sovjani
  Police Force (Manpower)
  Police Force (Manpower)
  Benson Report (Jockey Club Delegation)
  Benson Report (Jockey Club Delegation)
  Prisons (South-West Region)
  Prisons (South-West Region)
  Prisoners (South-West Region)
  Prisoners (South-West Region)
  Liverpool and Bootle Police Force
  Liverpool and Bootle Police Force
  Surrendered Firearms (Sale)
  Surrendered Firearms (Sale)
  Firearms Legislation (Prosecutions)
  Firearms Legislation (Prosecutions)
  Vandalism (Sentences)
  Vandalism (Sentences)
EMPLOYMENT
  Textile Industry, Oldham
  Textile Industry, Oldham
  Remploy Factory, Oldham
  Remploy Factory, Oldham
  South Yorkshire
  South Yorkshire
  Steel Industry (Wales)
  Steel Industry (Wales)
  West Germany (British Workers)
  West Germany (British Workers)
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Batley and Morley
  Batley and Morley
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Fees)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Fees)
  G.C.E. "A" Level Examination
  G.C.E. "A" Level Examination
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Education (Milk) Bill
  Education (Milk) Bill
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Lord Boyd Orr
  Lord Boyd Orr
  Republic of Ireland (Meat Supplies)
  Republic of Ireland (Meat Supplies)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  World Bank (Official Visit)
  World Bank (Official Visit)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Lifeboatmen (Allowances)
  Lifeboatmen (Allowances)
  Government Publications (Leeds)
  Government Publications (Leeds)
  Central Office of Information (Staff)
  Central Office of Information (Staff)
  Cost-of-living Index (Selective Employment Tax)
  Cost-of-living Index (Selective Employment Tax)
  Decimal Currency
  Decimal Currency
ENVIRONMENT
  Storm Water
  Storm Water
  Road Schemes
  Road Schemes
  Thruxton (Motor Racing Circuit)
  Thruxton (Motor Racing Circuit)
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mersey Estuary (Pollution)
  Mersey Estuary (Pollution)
  Road Fund Licences
  Road Fund Licences
  Council Housing Costs (S.E.T.)
  Council Housing Costs (S.E.T.)
  Council House Sales (London)
  Council House Sales (London)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Heating (Additional Benefits)
  Heating (Additional Benefits)
  Chronic Sick (North Staffordshire)
  Chronic Sick (North Staffordshire)
  Drugs (Approval)
  Drugs (Approval)
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRICES
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRICES
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
CIVIX SERVICE
  Production Establishments (Inquiry)
  Production Establishments (Inquiry)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SCOTLAND
  House Prices (S.E.T.)
  House Prices (S.E.T.)
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Primary Schools (Improvements)
  Primary Schools (Improvements)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Furniture Materials (Standards)
  Furniture Materials (Standards)
  Hotel Development Grants
  Hotel Development Grants
  T.S.S. "Mirand" (English Channel Survey)
  T.S.S. "Mirand" (English Channel Survey)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
WALES
  Infrastructure Projects (Expenditure)
  Infrastructure Projects (Expenditure)

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

AIR FARES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether at the IATA conference beginning in Miami in September next they will be prepared to support a move for the introduction of lower fares in Europe.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while Her Majesty's Government are not, of course, represented at IATA conferences, they will support, and indeed encourage, any reasonable proposal for reducing air fares, whether in Europe or elsewhere. It is only fair to say, however, that sharply increasing operating costs make it unlikely that the average level of air fares in Europe could be significantly reduced at this time.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while being glad of the somewhat more favourable response in the first part of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask him whether he remembers that his noble friend Lord Drumalbyn told me on March 10 (it appears at column 58 of the OFFICIAL REPORT) that while the Secretary of State cannot make recommendations to the International Air Transport Association he can and does make recommendations to the British airlines which are members of it. Arising out of that may I ask the noble Earl—and I have no information on this point—if B.E.A. are not proposing to put forward at the IATA conference in September a proposal for cheaper fares in Europe, will Her Majesty's Government make recommendations to them that they should do so?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in contact with B.E.A. and Caledonian/B.U.A. over the structure of air fares. Of course it is a matter for B.E.A. and the other airlines concerned to run their businesses in the most appropriate way, but where there are genuine occasions for reductions in air fares Her Majesty's Government are concerned that these should come about. I would add that the only way in which they can reasonably come about is by seeing that the aircraft concerned are filled to capacity, and this can be achieved both by the regular fares and the cheaper fares.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not know why the Government cannot give a short answer to a question instead of going all round the bush. Is the noble Earl aware that it is the over-capacity of the airlines which has prevented them from being full? Is he further aware that charter flights have proved that if the fares are right the traffic will emerge? Does he deny the validity of the fact that if the scheduled fares are right the scheduled traffic will rise, and can he please give a little more positive answer?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is entirely right in her facts, but it is because the airlines may be over-subscribed with seats that it is necessary for the airlines to have cheaper fares in order to ensure that the capacity is taken up.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords. I take it from that remark that the noble Earl has made my case. Will he assist the airlines to have the cheaper seats taken up by supporting a proposal in September that cheaper fares shall be introduced in Europe?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Baroness seems to have forgotten that there are cheap fares to Europe which are cheaper than the standard fare, and the reason why they are cheaper is because the standard fare has certain advantages which are not applicable to the cheaper seats.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not usually give up, but I am afraid that I do to-day.

SCHOOL MEALS: EFFECT OF PRICE INCREASE
3.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the reduction in the number of children taking school meals following the increase in price to 12p and the number now receiving school meals free of charge.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, a recent census carried out by local education authorities at the request of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science revealed that 4,161,000 or 53·8 per cent. of the pupils present at maintained schools in England and Wales took the school dinner on a day in May, 1971, compared with 5,148,000 or 67·9 per cent. on a day in September, 1970. Free dinners served in May numbered 753,000 or 18·3 per cent. of the total, compared with 627,000 or 12·2 per cent. of the total last September.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is being very helpful, but he is so anxious to get on with our business that I am not quite sure whether we were able to follow his figures.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, the figures show—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, we could not follow them at all. Will the noble Lord repeat his Answer, only speaking more slowly?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether I might briefly elucidate for the noble Lord. The figures show that the drop is 19·2 per cent.—that is 987,000 as a percentage of 5,148,000—and that the increase in the number of free meals is 136,000, or a rise of 21·7 per cent., which by any standard is a remarkable rise.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Slow!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, it is indeed a remarkable rise.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may ask the Minister a question, may I say—
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord should ask a question.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there is indeed a very remarkable drop in the numbers taking school meals, since the figure is approximately one million? I should like to ask the noble Lord—and I hope he will not rush his reply because I think this is rather important—in view of the record drop (indeed the catastrophic drop) in the numbers of school children taking meals, do the Government still intend to impose the further increase forecast for next April in the"mini-Budget ", as stated in the other place in October, 1970?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am glad that at any rate the noble Lord who put the Question was able to pick up the terms of my Answer. I think it is fair to point out that the drop was already beginning as from last September. We do not know, and I do not think that noble Lords on either side of the House know, the exact reasons for that. We think there are various reasons, and that there may be different types of need in primary and secondary schools. At the moment we do not know.
The answer to the noble Lord's final question is that the Government's policy as set out in the White Paper will go forward because, although we do not have complete freedom of choice, we believe that the reallocation of resources which it allows, provides the best choice available to us.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that some of us on this side of the House are also governors of schools and we know perfectly well that the number of pupils taking school meals has dropped substantially since the increased cost was introduced, and that it is a great mistake, if I may say so, for the Government to try to gloss over this and prove a situation which does not exist?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to accept from me that I have had a spot check made in one division in the county where I reside, and it shows a drop in meals taken by children attending primary school of 11 per cent., and a very heavy drop indeed overall of 20 per cent? Does he really think this is a problem that has been developing for some time, in view of the fact that the number of children taking sandwich meals has increased threefold in the last 12 months?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the drop in fact began after the last occasion when the noble Lord's Party put up the price of school meals. That is a fact, My reply to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, is that the price of the school meals in relation to average earnings this year is approximately the same as it was 16 years ago. This is information given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the House of Commons on July 8. It is because the Government were obviously worried about the nutrition of children that when the price was increased in April more generous remissions were introduced; hence, the increase of 136,000 or 21·7 per cent. which I have given to the House, in the take-up of free school meals that occurred between September of last year and May of this year. It is for the same reason that remissions will again be increased when social benefits go up in September, and that next month, when family income supplement becomes operative, it will be an automatic passport to free school meals.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the excuse given by the Minister of Education in another place, that this is necessary in order to provide the money for primary school improvements, is rather a poor one in this connection, and that we ought to be able to provide money for both purposes?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the first school building programme which my right honourable friend announced will allow in the region of 460 primary schools to be improved or replaced, as opposed to about 190 primary schools improved under the last programme under the noble Lord's Government. This is a huge increase, and I would have thought
494
that the whole educational world was absolutely delighted when my right honourable friend the other day was able to announce a record three-year programme. This is something which has never been done before.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would the noble Lord please reply to the question whether it is necessary to charge more for school meals in order to carry through this programme?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, for the answer to that question I refer the noble Lord to the White Paper which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer published last October.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is useless ululating about money being put in bricks and mortar when the creatures crawling there have rickets, are underfed and you cannot teach them at all? A good teacher can teach in any old building provided the children are healthy. Does he not—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I think I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to ask a question. He was getting into quite an interesting but long speech.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. All I wanted to ask the Minister was, does he not realise that the most important investment is in the nation's children?—and for God's sake! do not save on their nourishment.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think there are two things that perhaps the noble Lord is disregarding. One is the change in general feeding habits of children over recent years, particularly since the war; and secondly, the reasons, which I think have now become familiar to the House in our questions and answers, why certain children do not take the school meal during the summer months. I would ask the noble Lord, as I have asked him before, to wait until we undertake the second survey, in the autumn.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how he can possibly reconcile what he has told the House to-day with the fact that subsidising milk and food constitutes the

495
most important social service in this country? Is lie aware that he is his height and I am my height because we had adequate milk and food?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was referring in my answer, which the noble Baroness has picked up, to the sort of food which was eaten soon after the war; and I was simply suggesting to the House that people's eating habits have changed. I would have thought that to be common knowledge.
LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this supplementary question? The school meal, I think, costs 12p now, still with a subsidy of 3p or 4p. The cost of taking two ham sandwiches to school is something in the neighbourhood of 10p; a slice of ham costs something like 4p to 5p. So an adequate meal costs 12p, and the sandwiches cost very nearly as much.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my noble friend may be interested to know that snack meals consumed as an alternative to the school meal are not included in the figures I have given to the House. Of course it is not possible to estimate how many meals of this kind are currently being taken by pupils. I think what is worrying my right honourable friend is the reason why these snack meals have been taken. If I may say so, with respect, neither the previous Government nor this Government have managed to get to the bottom of this particular matter.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will read the Second Reading speech when the Education Bill of 1944 was introduced in the other place? Mr. Butler, then the President of the Board of Education, now a Member of your Lordships' House, said that the purpose of the Bill was to expand the schools and the milk service.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord has every right to take me to task for something about which he is worried, but I would ask the noble Lord to realise that I am worried as well, and I would also ask the noble Lord to look back through Hansard—and I make no political point of this at all—to see that when his right honourable friend the then
496
Minister raised the price of school meals for the second time during the previous Government's Administration, he referred again and again to the reallocation of resources.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, it is now 21 minutes past three and we have dealt with only two Questions. We have a lot of business to-day, and I think that the House, as a whole, feels that our questioning tends to go on rather long. I would therefore suggest to noble Lords that this is a matter to which we can always come back, and that we should now move on to the next Question.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I just say to the noble Earl, having been in the position that he is in, that I would endorse what he has said? There will be an opportunity to come back to this subject on the Second Reading of the Education (Milk) Bill. The position has been made a little more difficult for us by the enthusiastic floods we have had from the noble Lord, the Minister, but we shall have an opportunity to discuss this later. I would expect, since we have no Speaker here to control the proceedings, that the usual custom of the House should now prevail.

THE NATIONAL BUS COMPANY AND RURAL SERVICES
3.23 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals for the reorganisation of the National Bus Company, which has not only made a loss in their last fianncial year of £8 million, compared with a profit of £800,000 in 1969, but has had a loan from the Government of £6 million to cover cash needs for 1971.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, 1970 was a bad year for most bus operators, including the National Bus Company. The reasons are fully set out in their annual report. Earlier this year, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries told Parliament that the Company were taking appropriate action and that the Government were

497
meanwhile making up to £6 million available in additional loans towards the Company's capital expenditure in 1971. I am informed that the current year is showing better results, and that so far it has been necessary for only £2 million of these loans to be taken up.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply. Would he not agree that before nationalisation many of the bus companies were making money? Would he not consider denationalisation and handing over their control to a combination of local authorities and private enterprises? Would he not further agree that, owing to the withdrawal of many of the bus services from country districts and the failure of local authorities to carry out the terms of the Transport Act 1968, very many villages have become completely isolated? Could not small enterprising operators be released from the restrictions imposed by the traffic commissioners?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me one or two questions. The intention is that the National Bus Company will operate at a surplus and we have given them the target of £8 million, which will enable them to service their loans from the Government and keep their heads above water. They did make a profit in 1969, as my noble friend will no doubt be aware, and we have every hope that this year the position of 1970 will be reversed.
As regards the local authorities, they need to be encouraged by the Government and the local public whom they serve. Devonshire have taken the lead in appointing a full-time transport co-ordinating officer, while Yorkshire and West Suffolk are also setting a very good example in helping their local bus services. My right honourable friend will be announcing, probably this month, the result of the rural bus studies which are now to hand, and I hope he will have some comments which the House will find interesting. We are also looking at the licensing system, and we shall be coming forward with suggestions for this in the future.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in Devon there
498
is practically no public transport to coordinate? Nearly all the railways have been removed, and the bus companies seem to have suspended operations.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount will find that this will soon not be the case.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that much of the country is going to be without a bus service unless some other means are found to help? Is the noble Lord aware that many of these bus companies are no longer receiving the subsidy from the Railways Board to run these uneconomic services? Can the noble Lord say whether, if the local authorities do grant a subsidy to the bus companies, the local authority, in turn, will qualify for additional percentage grants from the central Government?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think it cannot be said too often that the Government give any local authority 50 per cent. towards its subsidy on rural services, and the 50 per cent. that they are spending will come up for normal rate-support grant anyhow.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one simple, straightforward question? Since the National Bus Company not only have operating but also manufacturing interests, can he say how far the loss of £8 million is split between those two sides of their business, and whether there is any particular agreement as to a division between support for the operating and manufacturing interests in the loan of £6 million?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as regards the first part of my noble friend's question, I must ask him to put it down on paper for me and I will get the answer. I do not have it with me at the moment.

MALTA
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement on Malta at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
EDUCATION (MILK) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

LANARKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
LERWICK HARBOUR 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.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION (No. 2) BILL
Considered on Report.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
3.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 155 [Immunity of confidential information]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 93H:
Page 115, line 14, leave out from (" unless ") to (" he ") in line 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 155, I submit, is a clause of very great importance. That clause and Clauses 55 and 56 deal with the obligation which the Bill places on
500
an employer to disclose information to a trade union which the trade union needs for the purpose of the orderly and effective conduct of wage negotiations. I think that on both sides of the House—and really there is no Party content in this particular aspect of the Bill—it may be agreed that, whatever reservations one may have about other parts of the Bill, this provision is an extremely useful one. It has a long history. It found its place first in In Place of Strife, in paragraph 47. It was introduced in the last Government's Bill which was read in another place for the first time, and it now finds its place in the clauses to which I have made reference in the present Bill.
Your Lordships may have seen on the Ninth Marshalled List that there are four separate Amendments to this clause. The one I am moving is perhaps of considerably lesser importance in principle than two of those which follow. Clauses 56 and 57 having imposed the general obligation to disclose information, Clause 155 excuses the employer from having to disclose information set out in paragraphs (a) to (e) of that clause. Clause 155 is in identical wording to a provision in Clause 22 of the last Government's Bill, except that that Clause 22 contained an additional paragraph which I believe, according to an Amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put his name, will be put into this Bill later. Among the types of information which the employer need not disclose there is information described in the following wording in paragraph (d):
" any information relating specifically to an individual, unless it is such that the disclosure of it could not (apart from any special private circumstances of that individual) be reasonably expected to be seriously prejudicial to him and he has consented to its being disclosed,"
That is the identical language of the last Government's Bill.
The Amendment which I have put down will leave out all words from"unless it is such"until one gets to the part of the paragraph which reads"he has consented." In other words, the information relating to an individual which could be withheld would not include information if the individual concerned consents to its being disclosed. At the moment, as the clause is worded the employer, in asking himself what information he has to disclose relating to the

501
individual, has to deal with two aspects. First, he has to ask himself whether it is information
" such that the disclosure of it could not…reasonably be expected to be seriously prejudicial "
to the individual, and secondly, he has to ask himself whether the individual has consented to the disclosure of that information. The point of the Amendment is this: surely it is enough that the indivdual has consented to the disclosure of the information. There does not seem much point, once the individual has given his consent, in going on to inquire whether the information is such that
" it could not…reasonably be expected to be seriously prejudicial "
to the individual.
My Lords, I put the argument shortly in these words. Is it not enough if the individual says,"Give the information; I am perfectly ready for it to be disclosed "? Should that not be enough to place an obligation on the employer to disclose that information? I accept that no very great principle is involved, but I think it right to put the point. I put the point in Committee and the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, replied in his usual helpful and courteous manner. Having read through his speech and considered it further, it seems to me that as it relates to this question of disclosure of information it is justifiable to come back to it and to ask the noble Earl whether he has had second thoughts about it and whether there should be a twofold requirement before the information is disclosed. I shall be grateful to know whether the noble Earl has had second thoughts on this matter.
3.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, the protection given in this part of the Bill is a double-barrelled one. In the first place, personal information may not be disclosed without the individual's consent, and the second barrel is that, even if he does consent, the employer may withhold it if the disclosure would seriously prejudice the individual's in-tests. If the noble Lord's Amendment were agreed to, the protection would become merely single-barrelled, and where this consent was given the employer would not be entitled to withhold the information, even where the disclosure
502
would be clearly against the interests of the individual concerned. The noble Lord quite correctly said that I said in Committee that I would look at the arguments he had advanced at that stage of the Bill. I have done so, but I believe, having done so, that the extra protection afforded by the double lock, as it were, is useful. On the whole we should be reluctant to see it expunged from the Bill. I grant that there may be a touch of the prefectionist about this, but it is the same perfectionism that the last Government imported into their Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, fairly recognised.
I should find it very difficult to state with absolute certainty that someone at some time would not, either foolishly, mistakenly, or perhaps with some other motive, consent to the disclosure of information of this sort. I am therefore reluctant to accept the Amendment, although frankly I am not prepared to die in the last ditch for it. I am reluctant for the reason which I have just given: that this is something which could occur. May I cite an example? An employer might well go to one of his employees and say to him,"Really, I do not consider that it would be sensible for you to disclose this particular piece of information ", but the individual concerned might nevertheless, against that advice, consent to the disclosure, or he prepared to consent. I think that in those circumstances it is reasonable for the employer to say,"You are mistaken. Reveal this information if you think you should; I want no part in it and do not intend to disclose it." I hope that by that example I have shown that the Bill as it stands is intended, as was the last Government's Bill, to work to the individual's advantage. On the whole I should prefer to leave the wording unamended, to have this double lock on door. At this stage that is my advice to your Lordships.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for his temperate and balanced reply, I should like to ask him whether he really needs a double lock on his double-barrel—which is the metaphor which came most easily to him and which seems to fit the circumstances very well. The noble Earl and my noble friend reminded us that this is the wording of an earlier Bill. I would remind

503
the House that this is the occasion when this House examines and improves Government Bills. The fact that a Bill has been put before either House of Parliament, drafted by the Parliamentary draftsmen with the full authority of the Minister of the Government concerned, does not mean that Parliament should automatically accept the wording proposed. We are making something like our 350th Amendment to this Bill. May I suggest to the noble Earl why it would be right for him to yield to his own better feelings, as I gathered they were, and not to be over-cautious about this?
First, there is the solid political fact that the general view is that although the clauses in the Bill requiring information to be given are forward-looking and welcome and in line with the code of practice, the whole benefit of those clauses has been withdrawn by Clause 155 which says in effect,"Yes, it may be right to give the information; but here is a list of the sort of information you do not need to give ". It would be helpful if the Government could show their willingness to support the general view that the code of practice was right in saying that information, where proper, should be disclosed. Secondly, the real test is not that of a double-barrelled gun; the real test is the consent of the individual concerned. That is what matters. If somebody else then says,"I do not think that you should have consented; were you wise to consent?", that is not an equal double-barrel; it is putting a further, unnecessary, cautionary stop on it.
I suggest that it would be extraordinarily foolish if in negotiation the trade union representatives said that they would like certain information; that it emerged that it affected a certain individual; that they should say,"Ask whether the individual is prepared to give it "; that the individual was prepared to give it, but that the employer or his representative nevertheless said."In the interests of the individual we do not think that it ought to be given ". That would not be believed. It would be thought that the employer was withholding the information because it was damaging to the employer and beneficial to the employee and for that reason the information would not be divulged. The real protection is
504
there. We are not removing the protection; we are removing unnecessary and fanciful words. Inasmuch as accepting this Amendment would help in a political sense to remove some of the perhaps exaggerated but not unfounded views that the benefit of the earlier clauses is being withdrawn by this clause, and inasmuch as when a negotiation starts it would be impossible to withhold information which the individual himself consented to be disclosed. I hope that the noble Earl will consider this point further and that he will say that on second thoughts or on second pressure he is able to accept the Amendment.
LORD SHIN WELL: My Lords, the last thing that I should like to see is the noble Earl dying in the last ditch—or in any ditch. I want him to remain.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord before he embarks on one of his longer speeches, or even on one of his shorter speeches? I meant what I said about not dying in the last ditch over this Amendment. I speak, I hope, with your Lordships' permission. With a view to getting on with the Report stage, I may say that if the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, wishes to press this Amendment I am quite prepared not to advise my noble friends to divide against it.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords. I accept that point. I was not intending to make a long speech but merely to say that it appears to me that the clause is redundant. The previous clause covers the whole point. So long as it is understood that no attempt is being made to suppress speech-making in your Lordships' House, I forbear from proceeding in any other direction.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords. I feel that it is important to remember that people very often disclose information which for some reason or another, they do not wish to be taken further. All of us, myself included, have been indiscreet sometimes. The noble Lord. Lord Stow Hill, referred to Clauses 56 and 57 to which this Amendment would apply. I should like to draw attention to Schedule 3, paragraphs 41 to 44, headed Disclosure of information, where (in 42(c)) reference is made to the provisions of Clause 101. Moreover, paragraph 3 of Schedule 6, in stating that the

505
industrial tribunal can sit"in private for the purpose of hearing evidence ", goes on in sub-paragraph (2)—the wording of which was altered not long ago by Amendment 90B—to provide that the kind of evidence which would enable a private sitting to take place would be
" information of any of the descriptions specified in paragraphs (b) to (e) of Section 155(1)…"
So I feel that we want to safeguard the individual here and give him the double-barrelled protection which the noble Earl felt should be given. I feel that it is a matter of protecting not just anybody, a company or a big organisation, but of protecting the individual. I should like him to have that extra bit of protection.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I feel in a difficult and slightly embarrassing situation. I moved the Amendment saying that I did not think any great issue of principle was involved. I moved it in the knowledge that I had ranged against me the wisdom and very great experience of my long standing friend, Mrs. Castle. I then found that I had also ranged against me the not very strongly held view of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I felt myself rather vacillating at that point.
Then my noble friend Lord Diamond, made, as I think, a very robust and powerful speech which greatly reinforced my confidence. My noble friend Lord Shinwell, made what I thought was an extremely important point; namely, that if one looks at the previous paragraph one finds that in any event information imparted to the employer in confidence is protected and does not have to be disclosed. My noble friend Lord Shinwell, was saying"in any event, why do you want the preceding paragraph which we are now discussing when you have that limitation which applies to all information imparted in confidence?" My interest then vacillated very greatly. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, then said that he was prepared, as I understood him, having heard the argument to advise his friends not to oppose the change.
I am wondering now where I stand. Technically, I suppose I stand in this position: I have moved the Amendment; I have not yet withdrawn the Amendment
506
and, in view of what noble Lords have said and the views that have been expressed (including, if I may say so, the view of the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, of which I have taken account) I feel the right course I should pursue is to put the question to the decision of the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.53 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 93B:
Page 115, line 19, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment page 115, line 19, leave out paragraph (e), and perhaps it would be convenient if the Amendments 93(D) and 93(E) in my name could be discussed at the same time. The first Amendment seeks to omit paragraph (e) which again is on this same clause we are discussing about the disclosure of information. Paragraph (e) says:
" any information the disclosure of which would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer's undertaking for reasons other than its effect on collective bargaining."
That kind of disclosure need not be made. An employer is not required to disclose that kind of information. If it were prejudicial to his interests for reasons not connected with the collective bargaining then he is not required to disclose it.
That is one way of dealing with the matter certainly. We are on a difficult problem here. It is possible I quite agree, to hold more than one view. How can one best carry out the intention of the Bill, of the Government, of the code of practice that there should be the relevant information given to the representatives of the employees during the course of collective bargaining without damaging the employers' interests; and, of course, thereby damaging the employees' interests, because the employees undoubtedly depend in part on the success of the employer, and it would be no benefit to the employees that the employers' interests should be damaged. You might succeed in getting a very short-term benefit as the result of the immediate negotiation, at the cost of doing damage to the firm, from which the employer and the employees both sought to benefit.
So, my Lords, this is not really a contentious matter. It is certainly not a Party matter. It is a matter of trying to envisage which is the best way to deal with what is admittedly a difficult problem. The way it is dealt with in the Bill is certainly one way of dealing with it. I suggest to your Lordships, however, that it is not the most satisfactory way, because the way the Bill deals with it is to exclude the disclosure of information which would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer. Once information which is needed for collective bargaining—and it is not in dispute that the information is needed for the purposes of collective bargaining—is withheld, no matter how true it is that it would be prejudicial to the employer to disclose it, once that information is withheld when it is admittedly needed for the purposes of collective bargaining, then I suggest to your Lordships that the atmosphere is immediately poisoned. It would not be a co-operative and useful negotiation. Therefore I think it is right that information should be given.
But if the information is given the employer must be protected, and I think the sensible way of protecting the employer is to enable a negotiation to take place through giving the information but to make it absolutely clear that that information must not be divulged. It is for that reason that the following two Amendments are put down. The second one which I invited your Lordships to consider at the same time was Amendment 93D, which states that:
" Where the employer "
and this is the proposed paragraph in place of the one which I am seeking to remove—
" is satisfied that the disclosure of certain information in accordance with the provisions of section 56 or section 57 of this Act would be seriously prejudicial to the interests of his undertaking for reasons other than its effects on collective bargaining "—
exactly the same words as in the present clause—
" he shall communicate that view in writing at the time of such disclosure to each of those persons to whom the disclosure is made."
That Amendment makes it clear that he has to disclose it. He is at liberty to make it clear to the people to whom he is disclosing it, and to make it clear
508
without any argument or doubt by putting it in writing and saying that this is information which will be prejudicial to the interests of this firm if it is disclosed. Therefore one goes on to Amendment 93E which says
after"subsection"insert"(2A) or ",
on page 115, line 34. That arises in the final subsection (4), which at the moment reads:
" If any person discloses any information in contravention of "—
a particular subsection—
" he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400."
What I am suggesting is that that clause should be widened so as to include the disclosure of any information in contravention of the very matter we are discussing.
So the total proposal of the three Amendments put together is that where you have information which is admittedly necessary for the purposes of joint consultation, of collective bargaining, and it is information the disclosure of which to the outside world would be prejudicial to the employer, then disclose it confidentially to the employees' representatives but make it absolutely clear when it is disclosed that it is confidential and that it would be prejudicial. Go even further—and this is somewhat Draconian but I nevertheless think it right—and say If this confidential information is disclosed you will be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400." That makes the seriousness of it quite clear. I hope it will be thought that this is a preferable way of dealing with what is an admitted difficulty, of providing information so that a useful and co-operative discussion can take place during the course of collective bargaining. I beg to move.

MALTA: DEFENCE AND FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS
4.0 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, may I interrupt the proceedings at this point to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the

509
Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? I will use his own words.
" I think it is right to inform the House of the situation which has arisen in our relations with Malta over the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements. The first gives Britain the right to station our Armed Forces in Malta while the second, which is dependent upon the Defence Agreement, covers the provision of British aid to Malta. Both these Agreements are due to run until 1974.
" As soon as he took office on the 17th June, the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr. Mintoff, informed us that he wished to replace these Agreements, which, he said, were no longer valid. Then, in a series of messages, he asked that a Minister should come to Malta to negotiate a new agreement under which aid would be replaced by a form of rent for military facilities and those facilities would be redefined. He also said that the Minister should come on the basis that the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements were at an end and that the new negotiation should be completed before the end of July. Mr. Mintoff would not elaborate any further on his proposals. This left us in doubt on a number of very important questions, for example Mr. Mintoff's intentions towards NATO, the redefinition he had in mind for our defence facilities and the financial implications.
" Against this background my right honourable friend the Prime Minister sent a message yesterday to Mr. Mintoff in which he said that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence would travel to Valletta in the course of the day and would be ready to discuss with Mr. Mintoff his proposals for modification of the existing Agreements. Lord Carrington's purpose would be to ascertain whether it was possible to negotiate fresh arrangements of a kind which he could recommend to the British Government to approve.
" It was in reply to that message that Mr. Mintoff claimed that the Prime Minister had rejected all the conditions proposed by Mr. Mintoff for a fruitful meeting. He added, as he has since
510
made public in a statement, that he hoped that the Malta Government would not be caused the additional embarrassment of having to ignore the presence of the British Cabinet Minister on the island.'
" To this message my right honourable friend replied as follows: ' Your message speaks of conditions. I had hoped I had made clear that there cannot be prior conditions in a matter which is essentially one for negotiation: and a negotiation requires that each of the parties should come to the table, with good will and without prejudice to their respective views, to discuss matters which are of common concern to them in an honest and genuine attempt to reach agreement. It was for this purpose and in this spirit that Lord Carrington would have gone to Malta, in the hope of agreeing with you fresh arrangements which he could recommend the British Government to accept. Lord Carrington remains ready to come, but since you say that you would have found this visit embarrassing, I renew my earlier invitation that you yourself, or your representative, should come to London.'
" We have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that we have no desire to maintain forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. We have also made clear that we are ready to enter into negotiation at Ministerial level, in good faith and without preconditions, with a view to reaching an agreement satisfactory to both sides. We hope that the Malta Government will now agree that talks should start on this basis.
" A further message to my right honourable friend from Mr. Mintoff has just been received by telephone. This message holds out a hope that it may be possible to resolve the difficulty between us, but the House will understand if I say no more until my right honourable friend has had an opportunity to study the text."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
4.5 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in this rather hot and busy time, first we should all like to say how sorry we were to

511
read of the abortive and wasteful trip that the noble Lord had to Heathrow yesterday. We are grateful to him for repeating this Statement, and I am sure that we all regret that there should have been this apparent friction with a nation with whom we have had such close and friendly associations. So far as we can see, and from the Statement which the noble Lord has given, the difficulties do not arise from this side.
There are only two points that I would emphasise. The first relates to the sentence which the noble Lord included in his Statement; namely, that we have no desire to maintain forces in Malta against the will of the Malta Government. In the present defence situation there is absolutely no reason why we should want to do so. Secondly, I hope that following the telephone call to which the noble Lord has referred an atmosphere can be created in which more constructive exchanges can take place.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I agree entirely with everything that the noble Lord has said, and I am obliged to him. I should like to make it abundantly plain that if difficulties have arisen they have not done so because of any action which Her Majesty's Government have taken.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we find it difficult, without a greater knowledge of the facts, to express any definite view of the unfortunate state of our relations with the Government of Malta. We appreciate that on the face of it the Government seem to have done their utmost to meet Mr. Mintoff, given the fact that he has undoubtedly repudiated unilaterally a perfectly valid agreement. May we assume that Mr. Mintoff has not had recourse to any threats, direct or implied, in the event of all or some of his demands not being met?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think that the time has yet arrived when all the correspondence should be published.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Although I have no doubt that the Members of your Lordships' House will sympathise with the working people in Malta if, as a result of any severance of good relations,
512
they lose their employment, has not the time arrived, quite frankly facing the facts, when Malta has no longer any strategic value so far as the defence of this country is concerned, and is no longer a deterrent against possibly aggression by any other country?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not think this is the right moment to discuss the strategic value of Malta. It is quite true, as the noble Lord indicates, that even taking into account the affection which all noble Lords will have for the Maltese people, there can be a price which is too high to pay for those facilities.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question? Appreciating his difficulties, would he bear in mind two considerations: first, the tremendous contribution which Malta has made to the people of this country; secondly, that Malta has the right to pursue a policy of non-alignment if that is the wish of the people and of their Government. With those two considerations, would the Minister utilise the telephone call which has come to-day to renew negotiations on a co-operative basis?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind those two considerations. I hope also that the Maltese Government will bear in mind what a great deal the British Government have done and does at this moment for Malta. At the present time we had better wait and see exactly the text of the message which has been received from Mr. Mintoff, and I do not want to add anything further.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, while recognising Malta's legitimate needs, will Her Majesty's Government undertake not to let themselves be threatened by bad manners or blackmail?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the Statement that I made to your Lordships makes the position of Her Majesty's Government abundantly clear.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while I regret very much indeed the friction which appears to exist between Her Majesty's Government and the Leaders of the George Cross Island, will the Minister agree that there appears to

513
be a changed attitude regarding Malta towards NATO? Would he consider that the time may have come to consider upgrading Gibraltar in its relationship to NATO?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was wondering how my noble friend was going to bring Gibraltar into his question. I admire his ingenuity, but I think I will let it go until another day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree at this delicate moment that we should now, when negotiations are going on, let the matter ride, expressing our confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Carrington?

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
4.10 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I am uneasy about Amendment No. 93B. I address myself to my noble friend on the Front Bench. It is quite clear that both the Government and my noble friend are alert to the danger of the disclosure of certain information which might damage the company. That is not the point of the argument, because if one looks at my noble friend's second Amendment he has provided a suggested means of preventing the travelling of information given to representatives which might be damaging to the company; so there is not a deep issue of principle here or anything of that sort. But I want to make what is a technical, or perhaps a better word would be"sociological ", point which might weigh in considering this Amendment.
The role of representative is one where an individual is elected to speak on behalf of others. The possession by representatives of confidential information can be extremely embarrassing. Representatives who are entrusted with confidential information come perhaps under greater pressure than can be envisaged to disclose it to those who press a particular course of action upon them, and who want to know, if they are refused their desires, the reasons for it. Without impugning in any sense the integrity of representatives, I believe that it would be quite unfair to give them
514
important information which could damage the interests of a company, saying,"You must not disclose it ", so putting them in a very serious position in regard to their customers. Here I speak from experience. I have explored this issue of confidentiality over the years with shop stewards, and the resolution of this particular body of shop stewards was, that if the information is of this kind they would prefer not to hear it, for the reasons I have given.
Perhaps this consideration might be in the thoughts of my noble friend and others when one comes to consider whether to press this Amendment or not. I would stress a point which I know that my noble friend has not overlooked—the fact that we are not debating the question, whether managements should be forced to disclose information which might damage the firm. If one looks at Amendment No. 93B alone that might appear to be the intention of my noble friend. But of course it is not, and if you take that Amendment in conjunction with his later Amendment, No. 93D, it is quite clear that he is alert to the danger of disclosure of information which might damage the company. I feel I am making a subsidiary point of some importance. I do not know whether I shall vote for these two Amendments or not but I thought it was worth while airing this point.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like to speak on this particular Amendment, No. 93B, because not merely does it pave the way for my noble friend Lord Diamond's Amendments Nos. 93D and 93E, but also, if it is not carried, it would not be possible, as I understand the situation, for Amendment No. 93C to be moved. Therefore I hope that it is convenient to the House if, in the course of my speech, I indicate the characteristics of Amendment No. 93C, which is designed to be an alternative way of achieving what my noble friend Lord Diamond seeks to achieve by his Amendment No. 93D which he has already explained to the House. My Lords, unless paragraph (e) comes out, I should have thought that neither his nor my Amendment could find their place in the Bill. I therefore address myself to the substance of Amendment No. 93C.
First, as a general statement, I would submit that this particular provision of

515
the Bill is really as important as any other. If one is trying to bring about orderly negotiations in a situation in which the relevant information, as to I suppose nine-tenths of it, must, in the nature of things, be in possession of one of the negotiating parties and denied to the other negotiating party—in the possession of the employers and denied to the trade union representatives—one cannot have realistic discussions across the table unless that information is in possession of both negotiating parties.
As I have said, this aspect of the Bill originated in In Place of Strife; it was in the last Government's Bill, upon which the provisions of the present Bill are modelled. But I submit that neither the present Bill nor the last Government's Bill provided an adequate answer to the dilemma as to what the employer is to be compelled to do in regard to information which the trade union representatives must have in order to make a realistic claim and which, nevertheless, is information which the employers' competitors would very much like to have and could use to the disadvantage of the employer if they had it.
My noble friend Lord Diamond has proposed one approach. In Amendment No. 93C I would propose to the House a slightly different approach. I do so having listened very attentively to what I think was a very impressive speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, when we were discussing the code of conduct. Your Lordships will remember that the code of conduct contains a blank space in which the Government say, with regard to the information provisions which will ultimately find their way into the code of conduct, that they are waiting for advice from the Commission which they have not yet received. Clause 155(2) provides that the code of conduct is ultimately to be formulated taking into account the provisions of Clause 155; therefore, it is essential to get this clause right before the code of conduct can take its final form.
The proposal that I would make—I understood this to be the theme of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Byers,—is on the general lines of experience in Germany. This rather lengthy Amendment would require the employer to disclose information whether or not it is information
516
which would, if divulged, be damaging to the undertaking; but to be allowed, if he chooses to do so, to disclose it only in confidential terms to particular representatives of the trade union who are appointed in order to receive that information. That sanction is provided for in the second paragraph of the Amendment.
My noble friend Lord Diamond's sanction would have been the criminal sanction at present specified in Clause 155(4). I propose an alternative sanction; namely, that the employer would be under an obligation, as I have said, to impart the information, but only in confidence to particular representatives of the trade union appointed to receive it. It would be imparted upon the condition that it was to be used only for the purpose of the collective bargaining, and imparted only to those persons who needed it in order effectively to conduct that collective bargaining.
If it were imparted to any other person, then the trade union concerned would be guilty of an unfair industrial practice which would give rise to a claim against the trade union under Clause 101 of the Bill; but the trade union would have a defence, and that defence is spelt out in the last few lines of the Amendment in the following words:
"…it shall be a defence to any such complaint that such use or disclosure was due to the act of some person other than a person acting on behalf of and with the authority of the trade union and despite all reasonable precautions taken by the trade union to prevent such use or disclosure."
In other words, if the information was misused or was disclosed to anybody not authorised to receive it, then the trade union would be liable to be proceeded against under Clause 101 as for an unfair industrial practice, subject to this: that if the trade union could show that it took all reasonable precautions to prevent the unauthorised disclosure, and that that unauthorised disclosure was due to the act of somebody for whom the trade union could not reasonably be said to be responsible, then it would be a complete and perfect answer to the complaint. I submit that that is a workable scheme—and I rather concede that it is not far removed from the German experience. I believe that there the union side do appoint representatives, obviously people who are responsible and careful, and that

517
the disclosure is made to them in confidence.
If that is a workable scheme—and it is one which must be submitted to the judgment of people far better versed in this subject than I am, on both sides of the table—then, in my submission, it affords an answer to the dilemma which confronts any employer who is under an obligation to tell trade union representatives all that they need to know in order to assess the claim which they put forward and answer the question themselves whether the employers' undertaking can afford their claim; and to disclose information which, if it got into wrong hands, would militate seriously against the employer's undertaking. Those two conflicting considerations have to be married and reconciled in some workable scheme, and I submit this scheme for the consideration of the House as at any rate one which might be taken into account as affording a solution to the difficulty.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, arising from what my noble friend Lord Brown said on the question of confidentiality, and the pressures on a shop steward in particular, to disclose information which was given to him confidentially, I can quite understand his point of view and I know something of the serious pressures that arise. But I think my noble friend was dealing with the peculiar circumstances that existed when few employers were willing to disclose anything that was likely to be confidential. In the few cases where they were, it obviously created considerable difficulties, because no one on the shop floor would understand that anything ought to be confidential once the shop steward had got it. If it is embodied in an Act of Parliament as a general rule that a degree of confidentiality must be observed, then I think the pressure on the shop steward would be much less, because it would be a general position within the law. I hope that my noble friend may feel that it will not be so difficult as he may have found it in the past.
4.25 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said in speaking to these three Amendments that this was a difficult matter, and on that I would agree with him straight away.
518
There is a difficult balance here. I think we are all in favour of the principles underlying this part of the Bill, namely, Clauses 56 and 57 and Clause 155 where we are now, about the disclosure of information, improving communications in industry wherever possible and laying definite statutory obligations on employers, where necessary—and I stress"where necessary ". At the same time, there is a balance between our desire to do that and to safeguard the legitimate interests of employers. This is the balance that we are trying to strike in this particular area. My task in replying to this Amendment, plus the two that were coupled with it, has been made, if I may venture to say so with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, a little more difficult, because although he has not formally done so, informally he has spoken to his Amendment, too. It might be for the convenience of the House if I replied to the Amendment formally moved by Lord Diamond. I have noted carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has said, and if peradventure these Amendments are not accepted by your Lordships' House, clearly we can turn to Lord Stow Hill's Amendment. I entirely agree with him that Amendment No. 93B is a necessary piece of paving to his Amendment. Having regard to that, perhaps I will deal with his Amendment—I am changing my mind—because if the House does not accept No. 93B, it will not be possible for the noble Lord to move his Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, it was in my mind that unless Amendment No. 93D were carried it would be impossible to move Amendment No. 93C. That is the only thing I had in mind, and I apologise if I caused inconvenience.
EARL JELLICOE: Not art all. The awful truth was dawning upon me as I was on my feet, because I have now realised the motive behind Lord Stow Hill's Amendment. I should like to reply to his point, because it is an important Amendment, and I will include it in my reply now. This means that I shall speak at rather greater length than I hope to speak for the rest of this afternoon. I do not think there was anything in principle between us on the last Amendment that the House accepted, but it was not perhaps an Amendment of

519
major magnitude. Again on this Amendment, I do not think there is any vast point of principle between us, but this is a matter clearly of major magnitude, because if any of the Amendments in the part that we are now dealing with were accepted, we should be making a major change in the Bill. I think it would be right to recognise that at the outset.
As your Lordships are aware, and as has been made clear, the clause as it stands exempts employers completely from any duty to disclose certain types of information, whether under Clause 56 or Clause 57, subject to the qualification,"other than its effect upon collective bargaining ". Paragraph (e), which this Amendment would seek to delete, forms one of those designated categories and covers information which could be used in a way seriously prejudicial to the interests of the employer's undertaking. What the drafters of the Bill were thinking of here was the safeguarding of information, or not to lay a statutory obligation on employers to disclose information, which was of great potential importance and of a high potential degree of confidentiality on subjects like production or pricing; matters like the forecast of a firm's future profitability; its cash flow position; new inventions, which I imagine would be included; its research and development programme; the fruits of its market research, which would be of considerable value to its commercial rivals. That is the sort of information which we have in mind here. I do not think it is necessary for me to quote further examples of the sort of information which would be caught by this clause of the Bill, in order to emphasise its importance for the firm concerned and indeed for its employees and its subcontractors as well. All I would say is that an unauthorised disclosure or a serious leak here could be utterly disastrous for that firm and its employees, and potentially crippling to its sub-contractors.
Therefore I think we shall all agree that this is an important area of the Bill. I believe that what is suggested in the first group of Amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, would present great practical difficulties, the chief of
520
which is an unauthorised disclosure or leak. I am not suggesting that there would be a leak in most cases: I think that in the majority of cases, confidential information would be perfectly safe in the hands of responsible people to whom it was disclosed. But we should be living in an unreal world if we did not grant that there might be exceptions. There are irresponsible individuals in every walk of life, and that category may include some people engaged in bargaining who, intentionally or maliciously, would not in the last resort keep confidential information of this kind to themselves.
May I suggest as an example the individual who might have received information under this clause as an appointed trade union representative and who then changed his job? In those circumstances he might well be tempted to reveal the information to another employer, and perhaps the commercial advantage of doing so would not be lost upon him. If he did so under subsection (3) of Lord Stow Hill's Amendment his trade union would not be held responsible because there were no reasonable precautions that they could have taken against this. The individual, if he could be traced, would be liable, as the noble Lord said, to a fine of £400; but a sum of that magnitude would be a"fleabite"compared with the potential damage which, wittingly or unwittingly, he might have caused to the firm concerned. It is on those practical grounds that I cannot advise your Lordships to accept the Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, said, I think, that he was a trifle uneasy about this set of Amendments; I can only say that I am more than a trifle uneasy about them.
May I now turn to the variant which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill has suggested? I think that it is in order—at least it is as much in order as the noble Lord was. His variant, No. 93C, if I have understood it correctly, if it were accepted, would mean that the employer would be under a duty to disclose information in the seriously prejudicial category, but only to persons specially appointed by the trade union. The intention is that further disclosure would attract fines, et cetera—for example, the £400 fine—to the employee or the individual, unless it was done on

521
behalf of the trade union, which would then be guilty of an unfair industrial practice. It is contended that the system of appointed trade union representatives, together with the"double lock"(to revert to the familiar phraseology) of a fine or compensation, would suffice to prevent the information from leaking any further. Again I grant that in most cases the majority of trade unions and trade unionists could be counted upon to display a responsible and thoroughly trustworthy attitude in handling confidential information of this kind. But because this is important, it is worth examining in some detail how the ingenious system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might work in practice.
The proposed new subsection (3) in Amendment No. 93C does not set any limits to the number of persons whom the trade union may appoint to receive the information nor, if I have read it correctly, need they be members of the union. Is it therefore envisaged that only a proportion of those negotiating for the trade union should be privy to this information? If so, I would suggest that this is not realistic. Since the information would have been requested because of its relevance to collective bargaining the entire union team engaged in that collective bargaining will wish to examine it in most cases; and those entitled to use the information under the last paragraph of this subsection on the union's behalf will not necessarily be the same persons as those appointed to receive the information under the second proposed subsection.
In those undertakings where unions or workers' associations negotiate as a joint panel the information is likely to pass to all those who are involved in the collective bargaining process. In negotiations with major companies, where a great many trade unions may be involved, the numbers involved on the trade union side may be very considerable; and the greater the number of those who have access to the information the greater the risk of unauthorised disclosure either at the time of the bargaining or subsequently. Therefore, here again there could be a very grave danger of very material risks which could have crippling effects for the firms involved, and the safeguards—for example, the £400 fine—
522
would not be at all adequate in those circumstances.
I know, since I have been interested in this area from time to time, that in Germany under the 1952 Act there is a different set-up, to which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, referred in his very interesting speech on the code of industrial practice. All I would say here is that the German system operates against a very different background of collective bargaining and a very different, and perhaps in some respects happier, background of industrial relations. I was very surprised to hear the German background adduced as something which we should necessarily follow, in view of the way that we on this side of the House have been criticised from time to time for borrowing trade union law or importing it from abroad. Be that as it may, I seriously suggest that in this Bill, at this stage, what we put in has to stand the test of relevance and applicability to British conditions.
My Lords, I have already spoken too long, but I had to cover quite a wide range. I have suggested reasons why the Amendments which have not yet been moved, and indeed may not be moved, together with the Amendment which has been moved, are open, in my view, to serious practical disadvantages. May I say two things in conclusion? First, nothing in the Bill would prevent any employer from disclosing any information that he wanted to disclose: that is quite clear. The Bill as drafted merely makes it clear that the employer has no statutory obligation in certain very well defined circumstances to make the information available. Again, although through their willingness to throw it overboard from time to time I should not wish to rest too heavily on the argument, I am unable to restrain myself from saying, in passing, that this clause as it stands is modelled precisely on the corresponding clause of the last Government's Bill. I believe that we have the balance approximately right. I do not wish to be dogmatic and claim that it is necessarily perfect, but in my view it would be a great mistake for your Lordships to accept either the Amendment which has been moved or those which appear later in the List.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will persist in his resistance to this Amendment. It seems to me to be a known fact of common experience that although sometimes it is possible to identify the sources of leaks, in more cases than not it is not possible. If that is the case, it means that the sanctions proposed either by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, or by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, are nugatory.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, will the House allow me to correct one small point in the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and in that of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins? The sanctions which I propose are not the £400 fine against the individual whom it may be difficult to fine: I would make the trade union liable to a complaint as upon an unfair industrial practice under Clause 101, unless the trade union could show that the unauthorised disclosure took place without any negligence on its part and was the act of someone for whom it was not responsible. Then, of course, the limits as to compensation set out in the Act would be applicable, which would be very much greater. It would be the union itself, not the individual, which would be proceeded against.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I have very great reservations about these Amendments, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend will not press them. I have no faith whatsoever in confidentiality; once certain information is given which can be spread I cannot see how it is possible to keep it confidential. Also, from what I have read, there seems to be a great deal of industrial spying and it would appear to be an area in which industrial spies could have a field day. Therefore, I urge my noble friends not to press these Amendments.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, nobody could resist a persuasive speech such as that just made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, who has special justification for putting forward a woman's point of view with regard to confidentiality. We are all in this difficulty: that we are not divided at all as to principle but there is a problem of making information which is needed available.
I come back to the first point, that it is admitted that information is needed for
524
the purpose of negotiations. If the information is not given, the negotiations will not march on the basis that they were intended to on the earlier clauses in the Bill or the code of practice. Therefore, we have to distinguish between the evil of an unsatisfactory negotiation and the evil of damage to an employer's undertaking as a result of information having been disclosed improperly. Certainly I agree with everybody who says that this is not a matter of principle; it is a matter of how to measure the two evils and which is the best way of dealing with the problem. I recognise that the point to which my noble friend Lord Brown referred is also a problem; that it is sometimes embarrassing to be given information if one is not able to disclose it in detail to those by whom one has been appointed to a position to receive that information. I know that, as an appropriate way of dealing with the matter, some of your Lordships have been considering the alternative of giving the information to auditors and asking them to pass it on to the extent that they should in their discretion.
These are all possible alternatives, but the real answer I come to is this. My experience, and that of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, is that where relations are good the problem of disclosure of information does not arise greatly; certainly the problem of breaching confidentiality does not arise. Therefore, one's first task is to try to ensure good relations. I think it is helpful to good relations to disclose information that is needed, and it is damaging to good relations not to disclose information which is admitted to be needed for the purposes of these negotiations. Therefore, I still come down on the side of disclosing information and protecting the employer.
I thought that going so far as the sum of £400 would be Draconic. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, did not seem to think that that was a great deterrent. It is, of course, the deterrent mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, I should have thought that it was a good guide as to what is a substantial deterrent. Any person disclosing information improperly which has been given in evidence before the N.I.R.C.—and presumably they would be entitled to ask for any information they liked at a confidential sitting, even more important information than that they were then

525
considering—would be subject to a fine not exceeding £400. Therefore, if the noble Lord will forgive me for saying this, I am not deterred from continuing this view on the basis that the £400 is not an adequate sanction.
LORD ROBBINS: If I am in order, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I should like to draw his attention to the words that were uttered by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell; if information is disclosed to an industrial spy, surely there can be no shadow of doubt that £400 is chicken feed?
LORD DIAMOND: I do not suppose that an industrial spy would rely on that method exclusively to obtain his information. I do not think it would be likely to arise in that way. Equally, if an industrial spy were to obtain information he would be able to contact any one of those persons who were present at the hearing before the N.I.R.C. or the industrial tribunal and obtain his information from them. Again, the figure laid down in the Bill as a penalty for that is £400. I do not dispute that the damage that could be done would be much greater than to the value of £400, but that figure is quite a heavy deterrent; it is a very large fine. Therefore, I should have thought that the Bill went far enough, and I do not seek to go further than the Bill.
Therefore, there is a difference of view as to how one could best deal with it. I note the anxieties which have been expressed by my own noble friends—by Lady Gaitskell and Lord Brown—and I should not want to pursue this matter to unnecessary lengths. We have given it a fair airing. I certainly share the view which I think the Solicitor General expressed during the course of a meeting to-day when he was addressing the American Bar. He said that this Bill would certainly need a lot of improvement in the future. I certainly think that this is one of the areas where it will need a great deal of improvement. But I do not propose to detain your Lordships further on this point.
I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Stow Hill would wish to address your Lordships further. It is entirely my fault that I did not anticipate that it would have been more convenient to discuss his Amendment at the same time
526
as mine, and therefore I am sure that your Lordships would extend to him the normal courtesy if he wished to do so. I gather that he does not wish to do so. Therefore, all I can do is to thank the noble Earl for obviously having given full consideration to these difficult issues, and seek your Lordships' House leave to withdraw the Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I with the permission of your Lordships' House, before the Amendment is withdrawn, say, lightly but definitely, that it was very nice of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, to invite the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, to speak again, but if Lord Stow Hill had in fact consented to that invitation he would have been out of Order because he was not the mover of an Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 93J.
Page 115, line 22, at end insert—
(" or
(f) any information obtained by the employer for the purpose of bringing prosecuting or defending any legal proceedings.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as has previously been said, Clause 155 is in effect word for word Clause 22 of the last Government's Bill, subject to one exception: that Clause 22 has a paragraph which appears in Amendment No. 93J, and for a reason about which I am not quite certain that paragraph was left out of Clause 155. I am pleased to see that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has put his name to the Amendment which I am moving. By way of explanation, may I say that the new paragraph relates to the information which is obtained for the purpose of proceedings by legal advisers acting on behalf of a client in a legal matter. The paragraph was designed to privilege that from disclosure. I beg to move the Amendment, because it seems to me that that ought also to be in the category of information which the employer is not called upon to disclose.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to say that I support the Amendment, not surprisingly as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has put his name to it. In doing so—this is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised at Committee stage—I should like to thank

527
the noble Lord for bringing what was a clear omission from the Bill to our attention.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl for what he has said.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.54 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause
Review of ballot taken under Part II or Part III
".—(1) This section applies to any ballot for which arrangements have been made by the Commission under any of the provisions of Part II or Part III of this Act, whether the ballot is to be taken by the Commission or by some other body.
(2) If, in accordance with Industrial Court rules made for the purposes of this section, the Industrial Court finds, in the case of a ballot to which this section applies, that the report made to the Court by the Commission as to the result of the ballot was incorrect, and that it would be just and equitable in the circumstances to amend the report so as to rectify the error without requiring a further ballot to be taken,—

(a) the Court may make an order amending the report accordingly, and

(b) where such an order has been made, the report shall have effect for the purposes of this Act as if it had been made as amended by the order.

(3) If, in accordance with Industrial Court rules made for the purposes of this section, the Industrial Court finds, in the case of a ballot to which this section applies,—

(a) that the ballot was so misconducted that it would not be just and equitable to regard it as valid, or

(b) that the report made to the Court by the Commission as to the result of the ballot was incorrect and that in the circumstances it would not be just and equitable to rectify the error in accordance with subsection (2) of this section,

the Court shall make an order quashing the ballot and so much of the report of the Commission as relates to the result of the ballot, and, if an order has already been made by the Court in consequence of that report, revoking that order.

(4) Where the Industrial Court has made an order under subsection (3) of this section, the provisions of Part II or Part III of this Act under which the arrangements for the ballot were made shall have effect as if the ballot had not been taken."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94. These Amendments provide for the review of ballots made under Part II or Part III
528
of the Bill. They enable the Industrial Court either to rectify an error without requiring a further ballot or to quash the ballot and so much of the report of the Commission on Industrial Relations as may refer to the result of the ballot. The Amendment which we have already made to Schedule 3 sets out the provisions to be made in the rules of the Industrial Court to deal with reviews of ballots taken under Part II or Part III. The subsections of the new clause are I think quite clear. Subsection (1) restricts the application of the clause to Parts II and III of the Bill. Subsection (2) provides that where the Industrial Court finds that the result of a ballot as reported by the Commission was incorrect it may make an order amending the report if it considers it just and equitable to do so. Subsection (3) provides that where the Industrial Court finds that the ballot was so misconducted that it could not be regarded as valid or that it would not be just and equitable to amend the C.I.R's report, the Court may make an order to quash the ballot and also such part of the C.I.R's report as may relate to the result of the ballot.
I have already expressed my gratitude to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for drawing our attention to the need for some kind of procedure such as this. I should add that the effect of subsection (4) will be that where the ballot has been quashed arrangements for a new ballot will proceed and the Commission will then report the result of the new ballot to the Court and the other procedure will follow. I promised the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner (I am sorry not to see him in his place), at an earlier stage to explain why it is that we have not made provision for a review of a ballot ordered by the Court on an application by the Secretary of State where there are reasons for doubting whether the workers really want a strike or to take part in irregular industrial action where such action would seriously prejudice the national economy, public order, health or safety. I think it would be appropriate, although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is not here, to inform noble Lords who would want to know why we have not covered this point.
We took this view because of the special circumstances surrounding an

529
emergency strike ballot and the overriding purpose of that ballot. We have made it plain that the ballot is intended purely to assess the strength of support for the industrial action taken, or to be taken, and to allow the workers concerned to express their wishes. Once the result of the ballot is reported to the Court the order is effectively discharged. Since the power to take further action either by the Court or the parties concerned does not depend upon the result of a strike ballot, and since the Court has no further statutory powers under the strike ballot provisions, we do not think it is right to give the Court the same statutory powers to review a ballot as in the cases where the result of a ballot imposes a legal obligation upon a party, or may do so. Furthermore, in order to protect the interests of the parties, and especially those of the workers concerned, and to remove any possibility of abuse of the strike ballot provisions, Clause 143(7) makes it plain that after the principal order under Clause 142 takes effect the Court shall not entertain any application in respect of the same industrial dispute or any other industrial dispute which appeared to fall within the scope of the original industrial dispute.
Nor does the Court have any power to extend the period within which the result of the ballot must be reported. The Court itself decides the period within which the result of the ballot must be reported, under Clause 142(2)(c). This means of course that the period in which people are restrained from organising a strike while the ballot takes place can similarly not be extended. We see no point in giving the Court power to quash the ballot when there are no powers available to the Court to continue the restraint on organising industrial action so as to enable a new ballot to be held.
In short, since no legal obligations can follow from the result of the strike ballot and all the parties concerned are free to put their own interpretations on the result of it, we do not think it is right or necessary to extend and complicate the strike ballot provisions to deal with any possible mistakes which may have occurred in the ballot. I quite appreciate that there are arguments on the other side which the noble Lord may put, but we have decided that on balance this would do more harm than good, and
530
therefore we have restricted the provisions of the new clause to ballots taken under Part II or Part III. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, it is my desire—and I know it would be the desire of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner—to thank the Government very warmly for having put down this new clause. As the House will remember, my noble friend and I put down new clauses to each of the provisions for the holding of a ballot, providing for a review of the reported result. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner had only one reservation with regard to the new clause, namely, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just reminded the House, that it did not apply to ballots under Part VIII—the emergency procedure.
I should like to say on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner that he would very much have desired to be here to thank the noble Lord in person. Unfortunately he is engaged on public duties elsewhere which require his presence. Therefore in a sense I am standing in on his behalf. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation why the new clause does not provide for the cases in which there may be a challenge to the reported issue of a ballot under Part VIII of the Bill. I accept that it will be difficult to import into that cluster of clauses in Part VIII procedure to make a review possible, there being no legal result of the ballot which ensues here and in other parts of the Bill.
On the other side it can be said that the ballot which will take place in the type of situation with which Part VIII is designed to deal is just the sort of ballot on which there might be a serious challenge as to its reported result. The ballot in Part VIII takes place where there is any doubt whether the workers support the strike. Supposing one gets a ballot which produces a fairly even result, I should have thought one might then get the strongest controversy on whether the ballot accurately represented the views of those concerned. However, we have had the explanation and I do not think I can press the case further. The noble Lord generously conceded that there were arguments on both sides, which of course there are, but I quite see the arguments which have prompted him to come down in favour of not applying

531
the provisions of this clause. Once again may I say that we are extremely indebted to him for putting down the new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.3 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 95:
After Clause 156, insert the following new clause—
Ballots under Part II or III of this Act fairly to reflect opinions of full-time and part-time workers
".—(1) This section applies to any ballot for which arrangements are to be made by the Commission under any of the provisions of Part II or Part III of this Act, whether the ballot is to be taken by the Commission or by some other body.
(2) If the workers qualified to vote in the ballot include a substantial number of workers who are engaged on a full-time basis in the relevant employment and also a substantial number of workers who are engaged on a part-time basis or periodically or for limited periods or purposes or otherwise than on a full-time basis in the relevant employment, the arrangements made by the Commission shall so far as reasonably practicable include arrangements designed to ensure that the result of the ballot shall fairly reflect the opinions of the respective workers so employed, due regard being had to the amount of time for which such workers are respectively engaged in the performance of the duties involved in such employment."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment also is concerned with ballots taken under Part II or Part III of the Bill, that is to say ballots concerned with the establishment or continuance of an agency shop or a closed shop, or a ballot for the recognition of sole bargaining agents.
Earlier in our deliberations we had some discussion because a number of us on this side of the House are disturbed by the thought that, in an establishment or an industry where a considerable and significant proportion of part-time workers is employed, it is not fair that they should have the same weight of voice on setting up an agency shop or a closed shop, or the recognition of a sole bargaining agency. When we were discussing this previously the noble Lord the Minister who was dealing with this indicated that they have their rights and that these rights should find their place in a ballot. There is some substance in this argument. On the other hand we feel strongly that they should not have
532
the same weight of voice in such a matter. Those whose whole life and livelihood are dependent on their full-time employment have a much more substantial interest in a decision of this kind than a group of persons who do not spend their whole working life in the particular job, and who may or may not be ephemeral. They may be seasonal workers, but in any case they do not have their main interests in the job concerned.
We think this should be reflected in the conditions of the ballot if it is felt that they should have some say in the matter. Therefore this Amendment tries to meet the point that, while there should be a place in such a ballot for the part-time worker, or possibly even the seasonal worker, it could be so organised in the wisdom of the Commission that their votes should not count for as much as the votes of the full-time workers. In practice this would not be at all difficult to organise. For example, one would merely have to use ballot papers of different colours, and the full-time workers' vote could count as one unit and the part-time workers could count as half, or whatever seemed appropriate. We have not sought to sot down any precise conditions because it did not seem very sensible to do so. Therefore, as your Lordships will observe, the Amendment leaves it to the good sense of the Commission to make such arrangements as appear to them to be reasonably practicable to ensure that the result of the ballot should fairly reflect the opinions of the full-time employees on the one hand and the opinions of those who are considerably less than full-time employees on the other hand.
In other clauses the Government have made a distinction between full-time and part-time employees. For example, we were discussing unfair dismissal a short time ago, and there the part-time employee does not have the same protection as the full-time employee, so in this legislation distinctions are drawn between the two categories of workers. We have had strong representations about this from some of our colleagues in the trade unions and it seems to us that this is a part of the Bill where there should be a distinction between the two types of workers. It is a real distinction in practice, as those of us who have some

533
industrial practice know only too well; and we hope the Government will accept our view that in something which is so important for the industrial life of all the workers in a particular establishment, those who have the preponderant stake in it should have a more decisive voice than those who have not. I beg to move.
LORD BERNSTEIN: MY Lords, this issue has come up a number of times during the Committee stage and also the Report stage of this Bill. On one occasion the question was raised whether we should pass on the same information to part-time workers as to full-time workers, and that was fully debated. There is an increasing number of part-time workers, as we have heard from people in industry on the Government side of the House, and from trade unionists on this side. We must consider the effect of the votes of the part-time workers against the votes of people who work full-time. I think there is a precedent for this in other clauses that we have agreed, and I urge the Government to accept this Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for what they have said. One recognises that we had a debate on this in the Committee stage, and the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness has taken into account the point of view of the Government and has tried to move towards it. As I understand it, the real purpose of the Amendment is that where there is a ballot the votes of the part-time workers should not carry the same weight as the vote of the whole-time workers, because, in theory at least, the votes of a majority of part-time workers could influence the ballot in a way which would be detrimental to the whole-time workers whose livelihood is tied up in the business. I should be the first to say that I think there is a great deal in this argument, and we have recognised this. But there is another side of the picture which I should like to put forward. I think possibly it is best explained by giving two examples, the first where an agency shop exists, and the second where there is an application for an agency shop.
Where there is an agency shop to which both part-time and full-time workers equally rightly belong, we believe that the
534
part-time worker should, in justice, have an equal right to vote, by virtue of his equal membership, as a full-time worker. One might stretch the point a little further and say that since the financial contribution of the part-time workers to the agency shop is the same as that of the full-time worker, it in fact represents a bigger proportion.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect, that depends on the union rules; workers who work for less than a certain period in the week may pay a diminished contribution.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I fully accept that. I was not making this as a major point; I was merely saying that it could be argued that their contribution represents a larger proportion of their remuneration from their place of work. I do not lay great stress on that point, other than to say that it would seem in those circumstances unfair to give less than an equal right to those people.
The second point is where an application for an agency shop is made. Of course, the question of whether part-time workers should be included in an agency shop agreement in the first place, and therefore included in any subsequent ballot, will be a matter for the parties who are making the application to decide. The union could, for example, apply for an agency shop to cover only full-time workers and specifically to exclude part-time workers. Unless the Commission were to extend the application to cover part-time workers, which seems to be extremely unlikely, unless there was very good reason for it, only the full-time workers would be entitled to take part in the ballot. But if part-time workers are to be included in an agency shop, I suggest that it is just and right that they should have an equal right to vote on the matter. Otherwise it would be possible for a small minority of full-time workers to establish an agency shop agreement against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the people who work at that particular place.
So far as ballots on recognition are concerned, again we think it right that part-timers should have an equal chance to vote. Of course, there are part-time workers who are not members of a union and are apathetic towards the union, and

535
they are hardly likely to take the trouble to vote. Their obstructions, I suggest, will not affect the result and the views of the full-time workers are likely to determine the outcome. But if they are unionised and interested in the outcome of the ballot, we believe that they should, in justice, have their votes counted the same as full-timers. In saying that, I do not wish to denigrate or underestimate at all the view put forward by the noble Baroness. We believe there is a very substantial point. It is our belief, though, that the implied principle of treating the votes of some people as of a different weight and as having a different effect from the votes of others is not suitable. We would also point out that the Amendment could put an enormously difficult task on the Commission, as it gives no guidelines as to how different weights could be given to the votes of different classes of workers. I appreciate that the noble Baroness suggested some ways, but we believe that where a vote is taken, the votes of one class of worker should be the same as those of another class.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what he thinks would be the effect on productivity? if there is a system of part-time workers, obviously it is to reinforce productivity. What is going to happen in this sort of situation where the union would be perfectly entitled to resist part-time working on this basis? I think we are missing the point. The part-time workers, certainly in anything I understand, are people who are brought in for perfectly good and sufficient reasons. In my own profession we have a great many pin-money journalists. But do you think the National Union of Journalists (I am putting a hypothetical case) would allow the part-time journalist, the pin-money journalist to decide the policy of the National Union of Journalists? Any suggestion on those lines would arouse a lot of opposition from the Union.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may speak again, to reinforce the view that I put forward, I would repeat that if the agency shop is so designed as to include part-time workers, we believe it right that they should have a vote. But if, when an application for an agency shop is being made, it is desired that it should
536
refer only to full-time workers, the application would be to that effect, and therefore the part-time worker would not have a vote.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Earl, who I thought was approaching in our direction at the beginning of his speech, retreated towards the end and left us where we were before. Of course, this applies not only to the agency shop but also to the closed shop. Surely we have had enough discussion about the theatrical and cinematograph professions, to appreciate that these are both instances where one can have part-time workers, and if they were not brought into a closed shop great difficulty might arise over the efficacy of the closed-shop arrangement. So to say that part-time workers can be left out is no solution whatever to this problem.
As my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder indicated, the whole substance of our objection to treating part-time workers on an equivalent footing to full-time workers is that it does not matter so much to them and they do not matter so much to the industry or the establishment; and this fact ought to be recognised in the form of the ballot. We know that in industry part-time working is not so much a question of pin-money; to some extent it is due to the fact that married women come in for part-time shifts, after-school shifts and so on, which are organised in certain instances, or for seasonal work, or when there is a rush order. I know that in my former constituency Courtauld's have several factories; and when there was a great rush on a number of women who had previously worked there came back to get the order completed. After that it might be several months before they returned to work. But at any particular point of time they would be there as part-time workers, though with a far less stake in the industry.
I do not want to labour the argument. I should have thought it was plain. I do not believe for one moment that it would be beyond the wits of the Commission to devise a sensible scheme. I do not think I should have the slightest difficulty in doing it, or that the noble Earl would have the slightest difficulty, if we

537
set our minds to it. But there is a difficulty here. This is something on which we have had quite considerable representation, and in the circumstances I must ask my noble friends to support this Amendment in the Lobby.
Clause 157 [Restrictions on contracting out]:
5.27 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment merit No. 95G:
Page 116, line 16, at end insert (" or any approved closed shop agreement ").
5.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 95) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 89.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Popplewell, L.

Archibald, L.

Fiske, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Royle, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Blyton, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Hoy, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Jacques, L.

Sorensen, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Masham of Ilton, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Collison, L.

Norwich, V.

Swaythling, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Pargiter, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Walston, L.

Diamond, L.

Platt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Plummer, Bs.

White, Bs. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Balerno, L.

Falkland, V.

Morrison, L.

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Radnor, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rankeillour, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blackford, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Boothby, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hacking, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Burton, L.

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

Shannon, E.

Camoys, L.

Sherfield, L.

Chesham, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hatherton, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Howe, E.

Stamp, L.

Conesford, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Strang, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strange, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Croft, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Vivian, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Digby, L.

Loudoun, C.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dundee, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Yarborough, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Young, Bs.

Eccles, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if it is agreeable to the House, I should like to suggest that we might take Amendments Nos. 95K and 95L with Amendment No. 95G. If I may just remind your Lordships of the purpose of Clause 157, which these Amendments are designed to amend, it is to ensure that no one will forego the rights provided under the Bill by agreement or arrangement, except where specific provision has

539
been made in subsection (2) of Clause 157 to exclude certain rights in certain defined circumstances. An example is where an agency shop agreement has been made.
We have been looking at this clause, and have come to the conclusion that there are three additional types of agreement which should be excluded from the provisions of subsection (1), and the purpose of these Amendments is to exclude them. The first would exclude an approved closed shop agreement. Such an agreement, which would have to be approved, as your Lordships know, by the Industrial Court, would, by its very nature, place some limitation on employees in regard to the exercise of the rights which they have under Clause 5(1) of the Bill for example, the right not to belong to a union.
Second, there are two sets of circumstances in which a conciliation officer, acting under Clause 156, may achieve a settlement of a complaint relating to dismissal or, under Clause 5(1), to the infringement of an employee's rights which had already been, or could be presented to an industrial tribunal under Clause 106. It is the purpose of these Amendments to exclude such agreements.
Thirdly, my Lords, there is the case where an agreement has been reached between the parties as a result of an individual making an application to the Registrar under Clause 81 in relation to a complaint against a trade union or an employers' association. Again, in such cases we think it would be wholly right to preclude the individual from proceeding with such a complaint to an industrial tribunal under Clause 107 where there has been an agreement reached. I hope that that is sufficient explanation of these three quite simple Amendments.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I ask just one comprehensive question on this series of Amendments to which the noble Earl, Earl Jellicoe, has referred? I have studied them. Am I right in thinking that no provision, either of the clause as unamended or as it would be amended if these Amendments were carried, could possibly affect the simple case of a worker seeking to claim compensation or other relief for an unfair
540
dismissal under Clause 106? I think that is the case. I think it important that one should not in any event in any way exclude him from exercising his rights. If I read the Amendments coupled with the clause aright, I think that nothing in the Amendments nor in the clause would prevent any worker in ordinary circumstances in which he complains, from prosecuting his case in the ordinary way under Clause 106. I think that is the case, but I should like it to be confirmed by the noble Earl if he is in a position to do so.
EARL JELLICOE: Yes, I can give that confirmation.
LORD STOW HILL: I thank the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95K.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 18, leave out (" or ").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95L.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 22, at end insert—
(" ( ) to any agreement to refrain from presenting a complaint under section 106 of this Act, where in compliance with a request under subsection (4) of section 146 of this Act a conciliation officer has taken action in accordance with that subsection;
( ) to any agreement to refrain from proceeding with a complaint presented under section 106 of this Act, where a conciliation officer has taken action in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) of section 146 of this Act; or
( ) to any agreement to refrain from presenting, or from proceeding with a complaint under section 107 of this Act, where an application under section 81 of this Act has been made to the registrar with respect to the matter to which the complaint relates or, if presented, would relate.").—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 158 [Employment under the Crown]:
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 95F:
Page 116, line 26, at end insert (" and in particular section 5 and section 22 of this Act shall have effect in relation to Crown employment and to persons who are for the time

541
being in Crown employment or (where it has ceased) were in Crown employment as they have effect in relation to employment under a contract of employment with a private employer ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment quite shortly because I observe on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 95D, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which, if I understand it correctly, is designed to achieve exactly the same result as I seek to achieve in the Amendment I am moving.
In Committee we had a debate as to whether a civil servant was empowered under the Bill to present a claim in respect of an unfair dismissal, if he asserted that he had been unfairly dismissed. I cited a publication in which a doubt had been expressed whether the Bill was so worded as to confer that right on a civil servant. I ventured to offer arguments which might seem to support that view. I put down this Amendment in order to remove that doubt. I did so by borrowing language from the late Government's Bill which I thought put the matter beyond question, but it seems to me that the following Amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, would produce the same result in much shorter and more felicitous language than mine. If the position is as I understand it—I do not know whether the noble Earl will be able to inform me about that—I would then ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I recall very well the discussion in Committee on this particular point. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is quite right to remind us of the circumstances. I believe he asked me two things: first, whether it was the intention of the Government that the unfair dismissal provisions of the Bill should apply to civil servants, and I told him, unequivocally, that the answer was,"Yes ". The noble Lord went on to express some doubt, if that was the intention of the Government, whether the Bill as drafted carried out that intention and I said that I thought so.
I am very glad that I only said that I thought it was so. I went on to say that O'Higgins and Stow Hill were wrong and Jellicoe, as usual, was right. I am glad that I expressed this as a matter of thought because, on further investigation, I have come to the conclusion that Jellicoe
542
was wrong and O'Higgins and Stow Hill were right; we were not carrying out as clearly as we hoped to do the intentions of the Bill. I can confirm to the noble Lord that if he agrees to withdraw this Amendment I shall move the next Amendment, which I think he will find meets the point.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and, in view of what he has said, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.38 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 95D:
Page 116, line 36, at end insert—
(" ( ) any reference to an employee shall be construed as a reference to a Crown employee ")
The noble Earl said: I think I need not embroider unduly on this subject. As I have said, we have been into this matter carefully. I have consulted Dr. O'Higgins's article; I have consulted my advisors and it seems that there is indeed a doubt whether the dismissal provisions apply to Crown employees under Clause 158, as drafted. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove that doubt, and I am quite confident that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, will agree with me that it does so. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise simply to thank the noble Earl very warmly for putting down this Amendment, which seems to remove any possible doubt. I am most grateful.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for thanking me? May I add, and I say this very sincerely, that I am in a double-barrel capacity, not only because of my slight involvement with this Bill but the more so because of my much deeper involvement in the Civil Service Department. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this matter to our attention.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 161 [Northern Ireland]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 95H:
Page 119, line 21, at end insert (" and it shall be within the power of the Parliament

543
of Northern Ireland to impose or confer duties or powers on the Commission or on the Chief Registrar, whether they are duties or powers similar to those imposed or conferred by this Act or not ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. Perhaps I may also refer to Amendment No. 95J. Both these Amendments are what one might call technical, administrative Amendments which refer to Northern Ireland.
As your Lordships are aware, in the main this Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland, but in Clause 161 we are enabling the Northern Ireland Parliament, if it so wishes, to enact legislation on industrial relations. It is of course for the Northern Ireland Government to decide whether or not to do so and whether or not to introduce its own legislation. In case it should decide to go ahead at some time in the future, it would be most convenient for it to be able to use institutions established in this country under this Bill. I should perhaps mention that the Amendments have been prepared after careful consultation with the authorities of Northern Ireland, and the Amendments will achieve a position which is agreeable to them. I hope that with this explanation your Lordships will agree to the inclusion of these two Amendments and approve them.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure that it is right that I should thank the noble Earl for having introduced this Amendment which has been carefully and accurately considered in all respects. I am doubly glad to thank him for moving it, for this is one of those unusual Amendments which improve the Bill and stem from the Government's own thinking. It is rather a pleasant and unusual occasion and I am grateful to the noble Earl.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95J formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 119, line 22, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
(" (2) In sections 120 and 122 of this Act any reference to the Secretary of State, or to a Minister, shall be construed as including a reference to the Minister of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland (in this section referred to as ' the Northern Ireland Minister ').
544
(3) On each occasion when the Commission make a report to the Secretary of State under section 123 of this Act, the Commission shall make a like report to the Northern Ireland Minister; and the Northern Ireland Minister shall lay a copy of every such report before the Senate and House of Commons of Northern Ireland.
(4) Sections 120 and 122 of this Act and subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall be treated for the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as if they had been passed before the day appointed for that section to come into operation.
(5) In the Government of Ireland (Companies, Societies etc.) Order 1922, in Article 22 (which provides for reciprocal status in respect of societies registered in Northern Ireland and those registered in other parts of the United Kingdom), after the words ' Northern Ireland in the first place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words other than a trade union or a branch of a trade union '.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 163 [Interpretation]:
5.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 95E:
Page 121, line 25, leave out (" this section ") and insert (" section 162 of this Act ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which in no way affects the meaning of"collective bargaining"as defined in Clause 163(1); nor does it affect the definition of"procedure agreement"which an Amendment in Committee moved from Clause 163(1) to Clause 162(5). It merely corrects the signpost in Clause 163(1) to the definition of"procedure agreement"so as to take into account that transfer to Clause 162 which now defines collective agreement"and"procedure agreement ". I must apologise for the fact that we overlooked this when we made the rearrangement of definitions, and again I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for bringing it to our attention. I hope that he will not mind my moving this Amendment in preference to his, and that he will feel that this Amendment entirely meets his point while at the same time pointing the way to the definition of"procedure agreement"in terms not only specific but which follow more closely the wording of similar signposts elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I rise to thank the noble Lord and to intimate

545
that he having put it right in his words it becomes unnecessary for me to move Amendment No. 95C, which does the same thing in different words.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure it will not be wasting the time of the House if I add my own thanks and say how pleasant it is to be back on the old familiar ground where the Government move an Amendment which stems from the careful and hard work of my noble friend Lord Stow Hill to whom we are all deeply indebted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.45 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 95M:
Page 121, line 36, after (" employee ") insert (" subject to subsection (3A) of this section ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to discuss Amendments 97E and 97G together with Amendment 95M. They all deal with the same point. The purpose of these Amendments is to exclude from the Bill various special police forces like the British Transport Police and the British Airports Constabulary. Your Lordships will doubtless recall that in paragraph 177 of the Consultative Document on the Bill it was stated that it was our purpose to exclude the police from the scope of the Bill. At that time we had in mind primarily the civil police whose inclusion in the Bill would be inappropriate, and I think that this is generally agreed, because of their special responsibilities and because they have their own negotiating machinery established under the Police Acts. As I am sure your Lordships realise, it has been the position since 1919 (when I think was enacted the first Police Act dealing with these aspects) that no member of a police force may be put in a position in which other unions may compete for the right to recruit him and to call him out on strike. I think it fair to say that Parliament, the public as a whole and the police themselves accept this situation. That is why this Bill does not in terms cover the civil police.
As your Lordships know, there are a number of other special police forces in the country. These constabularies play an important ancillary role in the country's police network. Their members are sworn constables; within the areas
546
in which they work they have powers similar to those of the civil police forces; they operate in close liaison with the civil police forces throughout the country and a great many of their activities—for instance, the maintenance of public order and general public services in airports and large railway stations—are quite indistinguishable from those undertaken by the civil police. The other constabularies that I have in mind, the Ministry of Defence Constabulary and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, are engaged in guarding establishments which in some cases are of vital importance from a national point of view and from the security angle. Since the civil police are not covered by the Bill clearly these other special police forces should also be excluded. If they were not excluded I think that we should find ourselves in a situation where one group of policemen not covered by the Bill will be working alongside and doing the same job as another group who were covered by the Bill.
In these Amendments—and I apologise for their late delivery, if that is the proper obstetrical term—we are therefore doing no more than to carry out the Government's intentions as stated in the Consultative Document. But because the members of the special police forces are"workers ", as defined in the Bill, and not, as are the civil police,"office holders ", it is necessary to have a specific exclusion in the Bill if they are not to be covered. With those explanations I commend these Amendments to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.50 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 95A:
Page 121, line 43, after (" employed ") insert (" or in the case of workers whose salary or conditions of service are determined by any Minister of the Crown, such Minister ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to propose Amendment 95A which I hope to be able to withdraw very shortly. This Amendment, together with Amendment No. 97A which is also in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont if Whitley, appeared at the Committee stage of the Bill and were fairly fully discussed at that time. I shall not detain your Lordships very much longer with them, except to remind

547
your Lordships that the question which we are raising here is with reference to certain professions, notably the medical profession but also the teaching profession, in which the persons concerned may be technically employed by a hospital board, an executive council, a local education committee or a university, and yet the terms and conditions of service are determined centrally by a Minister of the Crown. This was discussed and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was speaking for the Government on that occasion (reference, June 10, column 460) gave us an assurance that the Government were aware of the somewhat difficult position which could occur in these circumstances and were giving thought to it.
I am not alone in finding it somewhat difficult occasionally to interpret some of the clauses of this Bill, and it is my belief that Amendment No. 97H, which we shall reach very shortly, really meets these points. If so, this is really a probing Amendment to see whether the Government are able to reassure Lord Beaumont and myself that that is the case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I take it is designed to deal with workers whose salary or conditions of service are determined by Ministers of the Crown though they are not in fact employed by them. The Health Service doctor, I think, is one of the examples he has given and there are, over the range of what I believe is rather strangely called the"public sector ", a number of similar cases. We recognise that there is a problem here. We have designed to meet it by our new Government Amendment No. 97H, which was put down to redeem a promise given by my noble friend Lord Windlesham on Committee, and we believe that that Amendment does deal with the problem.
The particular method adopted by the noble Lord in this particular Amendment is not acceptable to us. It seeks to deal with the problem by altering the definition of"employer ". We all know that no man may serve two masters, but that is precisely what this definition would seek to make him do for the purposes of the Bill. This is designed really as a
548
criticism of the method and not as the object in view. As I understand that the second noble Lord who put his name to this Amendment is in Holy Orders he will, I am sure, urge the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to withdraw it having heard this terrifying possibility.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I am not sure whether Ministers are cast as"God"or"Mammon ".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: They are Caesar, my Lord.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 95N:
Page 122, line 19, after first (" dispute ") insert (" subject to subsection (3B) of this section ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am briefed to accept this Amendment. I will, however, beg to move it on behalf of my noble friend. It is to be read with Amendment No. 97H. The Amendments will extend the definition of"industrial dispute"to cover disputes arising between a Minister and one or more organisations of workers where the Minister is not the employer of the workers concerned in the dispute, but where the Minister is represented on a statutory negotiating body which determines the conditions of the workers concerned or where he has the statutory duty to determine what the conditions of employment of those workers should be. It is therefore a paving Amendment to the Amendment of which I spoke a moment ago, which is designed to meet the precise problem put by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, in the last Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 122, line 21, at end insert (", or a dispute between one or more workers or organisations of workers,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 96 in a territory with which I am not very familiar. The clause with which we are dealing is the definition clause, and at line 21 we are concerned with the definition of an industrial dispute. The essence of the

549
matter is that the industrial dispute definition does not include a dispute between worker and worker. Originally, that is to say in section 5 of the 1875 Act, a trade dispute—and"industrial dispute"in this definition clause is really the same as"trade dispute"in the 1875 Act—was there defined so as to include not only disputes between employers and workers but also disputes between workers and workers. That is the essence of the matter and the Amendment seeks to propose a method of putting that right by including the words
" or a dispute between one or more workers or organisations of workers ".
Perhaps it would be convenient for your Lordships to consider with this Amendment the following one, because these are two alternative methods of remedying this omission. I am assuming, of course, that the Government wish to remedy this omission because if they did not do so we should be back, so I understand, at the situation that was governed by the law as it was before the relevant 1906 Act, and that would not be, I imagine, the kind of framework which the Government themselves would desire.
There is a particular kind of difficult area of dispute between worker and worker and that is the demarcation dispute. If therefore it was part of the Government's intention that the definition should be widened only to cover that point, then I think the words in the second Amendment would serve that purpose. The second Amendment, Amendment No. 97, would insert at a later point:
" and also a dispute between one or more workers or organisations of workers "—
that is to say, again it is limited to that area; it is not a dispute between worker and employer—
" where the dispute relates wholly or mainly to the allocation of work as between workers or groups of workers ".
In short, we are saying to the Government,"We assume, subject to your correction, that you want the legal framework of this Bill to be brought up to date, in the sense that it should not be left in the position that it was as far back as 1905 ". That being so, the definition of"industrial dispute"ought to go farther than it does in the clause and ought to cover disputes between one or more workers or organisations of
550
workers. If the Government do not feel that the inclusion ought to be as broad as that, and ought to be narrower in the sense that it should apply only to demarcation disputes which involve disputes between worker and worker, then that is an alternative point of view which is catered for in the second Amendment. Accordingly, I move Amendment No. 96.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee, and I had hoped that I had persuaded the noble Lord who raised this point (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill) that the Amendment is totally unnecessary and, indeed, would for that reason be totally inappropriate. Demarcation disputes as such are contained within the existing definition of"industrial disputes"at line 30 on page 122 of the Bill. What the Amendment would propose to do is to insert in the definition of"industrial dispute"a dispute in which trade unions, or groups of workers, are engaged in a dispute inter se without the employer being brought into the matter at all. This is inappropriate because, as I ventured to point out in Committee, there are no proceedings under the Bill, and there is no possible set of circumstances which can arise under the Bill in which such a dispute arises and to which the Bill has any application at all. The moment the employer comes in the dispute becomes an industrial dispute and the Bill bites on it. So long as the dispute is purely between workers, without involving any employer at all, there is absolutely no possibility of the Bill applying to it. It therefore follows that this Amendment is inappropriate in a definition clause because there is nothing to which it can relate.
There is no difference en policy between the noble Lord who proposed this Amendment and the Government. There is no desire on the part of the Government to re-introduce a pre-1906 situation here, and it is our belief that it does not do so. This is what I tried to explain in Committee to a noble Lord (I cannot exactly remember whom) who drew attention to the findings of the Donovan Commission and said that what we were legislating here was inconsistent with Donovan, which on paper it is, but that is because we are dealing here solely with the definition clause designed to

551
meet the provisions of this Bill. We are satisfied that there is no set of provisions in this Bill which would conceivably apply to, or bite upon, a dispute which is purely between workers and has no relation to an employer as such. In such a case we think that such organisations of workers could either settle the dispute among themselves or, alternatively, go to the T.U.C. under the Bridlington Rules. If they involved the employer by taking industrial action then it is within the terms of the existing definition without the Amendment, so that the Amendment serves no valid purpose whatever. I hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will feel it possible to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. It has been very worth while having this discussion. His recollection is absolutely correct that we had a previous discussion, and the noble and learned Lord offered an explanation then. The unfortunate position is that some of those who are also learned in the law, and advise us, did not take exactly the same point of view as the noble and learned Lord, in that his explanation disposed of all possible future arguments. However, before the noble and learned Lord takes umbrage at that, what he has now said adds considerably to the case. I attached enormous importance to the fact that he said clearly that he does not think that we differed as to policy. He has said that the Government's policy is not to go back to the 1905 situation. He said that if this Amendment were introduced it would be of no practical effect because the Bill does not govern that kind of circumstance. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having explained the matter more fully and more persuasively, and I seek your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH LORD DELACOURT-SMITH moved Amendment No. 97C:
Page 123, line 9, at end insert (" or action taken by one or more employers not reasonably necessary for the promotion of the interests of the undertaking or undertakings in relation to which such action is taken with the intention wholly or primarily on the part of one or more of such employers of causing
552
detriment to the interests of some or all of the workers employed or engaged in such undertaking or undertakings.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had the opportunity of touching upon the point of this Amendment at an earlier stage in the proceedings. The argument then advanced was that under this Bill the Government have envisaged action on the part of the trade unions which would take the form of a strike, or an irregular industrial action falling short of a strike, but in the case of action by employers they have referred only to a lockout. It appeared to us that there were a variety of measures which might be taken by employers in the course of disagreements with those who work for them which fell short of a lockout but which ought to be brought within the scope of this Bill. They are in a sense the counterpart on the employer's side of the irregular action short of a strike, to which reference is made in the Bill in respect of trade union action.
The most satisfactory way to try to put this right is to widen the definition of"lockout ". We have taken into account the fact that some action of this sort taken by employers might amount to discrimination under other clauses, but it appears that there is a range of action which employers may take against groups of people or, in some cases, against individuals, which is undertaken in the course of differences of opinion between the two sides in industry and which has not been covered by any of the phraseology at present in the Bill. The list is by no means exhaustive, but we have in mind such courses of action as refusal to employ; limitation or reallocation of overtime; removal of a man from one factory to another in circumstances where such removal is not precluded either by his contract of employment or any collective agreement; re-allocation of jobs so that men or a man might be in a less remunerative position, and so forth. There is the possibility of an employer who has dismissed a man and refused to reinstate him, who in one way or another suggests to, or brings pressure of some kind upon, another employer to abstain from employing the man, or even to dismiss him.
There could be, and in some cases there is, a range of action which ought to be brought within the scope of the Bill, which corresponds on the employers'

553
side to the irregular action short of a strike to which reference is made in the Bill, as one of the weapons in the trade union armoury, and we trust, my Lords, that the way in which we have sought to deal with this necessary matter will commend itself to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in many ways one can sympathise with the object which the noble Lord has stated, but I do not think on reflection that the House will accept that the means chosen Ito effect the object are either appropriate or really acceptable. There is a definition of"strike"in this clause which we are now discussing. There is a definition of"irregular industrial action short of a strike"set out at length in Clause 33(4) and referred to in the definition clause here, and there is a definition of"lock-out"which is set out at length at the top of page 123 to which the noble Lord's present Amendment is a suggested alteration or addition."Strike"is defined as"a concerted stoppage of work "—noble Lords will see the full definition at the bottom of page 123. I think everybody would say that that is exactly what we mean by"strike"in ordinary language. An"irregular industrial action short of a strike"is defined in one of two ways:
" (a) carried on by a group of workers with the intention of preventing, reducing or otherwise interfering with the production of goods or the provision of services "
or alternatively—
" (b)…is carried on in breach of their contracts of employment…".
That, again, one can understand, and it has a fairly definable and ascertainable meaning."Lock-out ", as defined at the top of page 123 is:
" action…which consists of the exclusion of workers from…places of employment or of the suspension of work in one or more such places…".
The full definition will be seen in the text. That I suppose is exactly what ordinary people understand by a lockout. In other words, these definitions of"strike ","irregular action short of a strike ", and"lock-out"are designed to carry the meaning which ordinary language would probably assign to them.
The noble Lord, in a desire to penalise—which may be highly desirable—a number of other actions by the employer
554
which he claims to be analogous to the"irregular industrial action short of a strike ", which is defined in Clause 33(4), has proposed to include:
" action taken by one or more employers not reasonably necessary for the promotion of the interests of the undertaking or undertakings in relation to which such action is taken with the intention wholly or primarily on the part of one or more of such employers of causing detriment to the interests of some or all of the workers employed or engaged in such undertaking or undertakings."
I can conceive this particular phrase as giving rise to almost endless dispute and controversy in the courts. I simply do not understand how a court could apply this definition in places where the word"lockout"is referred to throughout the Bill. You only have to look at the clause dealing with unfair dismissal, Clause 25, to see how inappropriate those words would be if you tried to apply them in any detail to a concrete situation of alleged unfair dismissal in the course of a lock-out. The fact is it is not a good way of penalising employers or anybody else to introduce, by way of addition, this totally inappropriate definition so as to use words in a sense wholly different from the way in which they are employed in ordinary language. If I may develop that, the noble Lord seems to think, and I think wrongly, that the Act does not bite on this kind of action by an employer, the analogue to the irregular industrial action short of a strike in Clause 33(4). The definition in paragraph (b) deals with breach of contracts of employment as does the elaborate code about unfair dismissal, which can bite upon the employer and which is dealt with in a whole sequence of clauses—Clauses 22, 23, 24, 25, in which unfair dismissal becomes an unfair industrial practice and is penalised as such and gives rise incidentally to a direct claim for compensation at pursuit of the individual worker. That is where you want to look for that kind of analogue. Similarly you find the kind of thing which is complained of against employers in actual practice, the withholding of information, for instance in the course of negotiation. That again is the subject of a whole sequence of individual clauses. It is beyond question that if either the employer or the trade union breaks a collective agreement in writing which does not contain the disclaimer clause, either the employer or the trade union, whichever it may be, is subject to the

555
penalties or the sanctions of the legislation, but, with respect, what you do not get here is any advantage. I can see considerable disadvantage but I cannot see any corresponding advantage by judging the definition of lock-out so as to include various types of undesirable conduct by employers which would then be applied rather inappropriately wherever the word"lock-out"is used throughout the text of the Bill.
There is of course an additional and I think rather important safeguard against the kind of conduct which the noble Lord has in mind to condemn, and which I would join with him in condemning. There is going lo be a Code of Industrial Relations Practice and there is also the fundamental provision of all the sanction clauses of the Bill that the remedy, if there be a remedy, is only available when it is just and equitable that the remedy should be granted. It is of course quite clear that if an employer indulged in the kind of conduct which the noble Lord envisages he would not be able or certainly not be able easily to obtain any remedies under the Act because he was barred by the just and equitable clause and if he were in breach of the code of practice, as he almost certainly would be if he were guilty of these malpractices in a deliberate way, he would find it almost impossible to secure his remedy. The result is that—I do not complain that the noble Lord should condemn practices of this kind—the object of the Bill is to secure good industrial relations and it would be entirely wrong if one encouraged actions of this kind in the course of such a Bill.
I do not quite know how frequently the noble Lord claims his various malpractices occur. I should imagine that they were extremely rare. But I have no direct evidence of it, and the noble Lord has not adduced any. What I feel reasonably confident of is that he has proposed an inappropriate remedy for malpractices of this kind, while the Bill has adequate safeguards which, when properly analysed, indicate no inequity between the two sides of industry proposed.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, so far as I could gather, the noble and learned Lord rather accepted the possibility of malpractices, and he spoke of remedies.
556
Therefore there must be a remedy for something. He seemed to admit that there was a need for a remedy for what could be an unfair industrial practice. Could the noble and learned Lord explain where that is to be found in the Bill?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if with the leave of the House I may reply to that question, the answer is that it can be found in the procedural clauses where the remedies are given. The clauses from about Clause 100 onwards explain where the remedies for an unfair industrial practice are. They apply equally to employers, trade unions and individuals, and consist in (a) a declaratory judgment, (b) compensation, or (c) an order in the nature of an injunction, which in some ways is the most effective of all applied to an employer who is indulging in a continuing practice. All those are to be found in the clauses of the Bill from Clause 100 onwards. There is, I think, a separate clause dealing with the particular question of unfair dismissal. But it is in that sequence of clauses in the Bill that the noble Lord will find what he is asking for. However, with respect, you will not do any good by trying to pop it into the definition clause, which is not a sanctions clause at all.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I think the House is bound to feel some sense of disappointment at the obesrvations the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made, but I think he has accepted that the problem to which we are drawing attention in this Amendment is a real problem and that it is one which is not covered in the Bill. Nobody can say how widespread a problem it is, but we have on several occasions at earlier stages in the Bill taken the view, urged on by noble Lords representing the Government, that if there is the possibility of even one case, or a small number of cases, where injustice may arise, provision should be made for it. Therefore the fact that it is not possible to demonstrate that these malpractices are widespread should not be regarded as a sound argument. Since it is accepted that there are malpractices, and that they are not all by any means covered in the Bill—the references which the noble and learned Lord made, for

557
example, to dismissals covered only a part, and indeed not the main part, of the examples that I gave—surely it is incumbent upon the noble and learned Lord to advise the House, even at this late stage of the proceedings on the Bill, how this gap in the Bill can be remedied.
There is, I submit, clearly no provision in the Bill to stigmatise as unfair action which I think your Lordships would agree would be unfair: for example, for employers collectively to abstain from employing a particular individual; for an employer, as I suggested, having had experience of a man whom he might regard as too zealous a trade unionist, to suggest to other employers that it would not be wise to employ that man when he is on the labour market; restriction of normal promotion opportunities for an individual or a group of individuals, or all the other possible malpractices
to which I drew attention. I admitted in making my case that there might well be some of these which could be regarded as discrimination against the individual perhaps for trade union activities, but I wish again to submit to your Lordships that it is clear from the discussion we have had that there is an admitted gap in the Bill. I regret the fact that the noble and learned Lord has devoted a good deal of his argument, though not the whole of it, to the inappropriateness of this particular method of trying to close the gap, without suggesting to your Lordships an alternative method by which the gap might be closed.
6.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 97C) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 94.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Balogh, L.

Garnsworthy, L.[Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Brown, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Sorensen, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lindgren, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Longford, E.

Stonham, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Digby, L.

Hood, V.

Ailwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Alport, L.

Dundee, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Auckland, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E.

Balfour, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lansdowne, M.

Barnby, L.

Exeter, M.

Latymer, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Loudoun, C.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrier, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Birdwood, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Brentford, V.

Garner, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gray, L.

Monck, V.

Burton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Mountevans, L.

Byers, L.

Gridley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Hacking, L.

Oakshott, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hailes, L.

Platt, L.

Conesford, L.

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

Radnor, E.

Courtown, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Croft, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Daventry, V.

Hatherton, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L.

Hertford, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Sandford, L.

Strang, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Seear, Bs.

Strange, L.

Vivian, L.

Selkirk, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Windlesham, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Strathcarron, L.

Yarborough, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Swaythling, L.

Young, Bs.

Somers, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.33 p.m.
LORD PLATT LORD PLATT moved Amendment No. 97A:
Page 123, line 24, at end insert (" and shall include the appropriate side of any Whitley Council or committee thereof ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel I am going to withdraw this Amendment, but I should like to be sure that what the noble and learned Lord told us about Amendment No. 97H having met my previous Amendment No. 95A, which of course I accepted, would also apply to cases where the Whitley Council rather than the Ministry or Department itself is concerned in determining the terms and conditions of service. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before I move Amendment No. 97H I shall have to get a fairly definite answer for the noble Lord. It was certainly designed to meet all the noble Lord's objections under this head, but how far it will actually do so I must ask for a few minutes' grace in order to find out.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, in that case I am quite happy to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 97D:
Page 123, line 41, leave out (" a group of ") and insert (" one or more ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97D. It reverts to a topic which we have very recently discussed, which gave rise to some considerable difference of view. I am compelled to pursue it not with a view to pressing this Amendment unduly or to dividing the House, but to ascertaining the meaning of the definition as it now stands and whether there is any need to alter it in order to achieve the purposes which I think are common both to the Government and the Opposition.
Line 41 deals with the definition of"strike "—a most important definition.
560
The definition is given as"a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers ". Those are the only words I need bother your Lordships with. The Amendment seeks to insert instead of"a group of"the words"one or more ". You will immediately say that the concept of a concerted stoppage of work by one worker is an unsual one, and I will grant that immediately, and underline it immediately to indicate to your Lordships the kind of difficulty we are in. A strike is certainly a concerted stoppage. It occurs where a number of workers all come out together from a particular factory shop floor, or whatever the case may be.
The Bill provides, by way of declaring what in any event the present law is, that if a person about to strike gives notice of the same duration that he would have to give in order to terminate that employment, that is a beneficial thing to do. That is the effect of it without going into too much detail; and it is right therefore that, wherever possible, strikers should give notice to strike. We are aware of the fact that a group of workers may, and in many cases will, include workers on different periods of notice in their contracts of employment. So one is confronted with the problem, how do all the workers in this particular physical area stop work at the same time and all give notice, when the notice is for varying periods?
One of the alternatives put forward, in fact by the noble and learned Lord himself, I believe, was that if the vast majority were on one week's notice and there is a very small minority on two weeks' notice, that small minority could walk out later. Supposing that small minority were so small as to be one person? Supposing that one person was the storekeeper on the floor of a factory where everyone else was a machinist, and all machinists were subject to one week's notice and the storekeeper was subject to two weeks' notice?
The suggestion is that the purpose of giving due notice would be achieved by giving one week's notice in respect of the 100 workers, shall we say, who are

561
machinists, and two weeks' notice in respect of the one storekeeper. The 100 machinists would walk out after one week and the single storekeeper would walk out after two weeks, having given a strike notice. If that strike notice is to protect him he has to be striking, not giving notice to terminate his employment; one person joining his mates in a strike one week after the rest of them have withdrawn their labour. Therefore, in order to achieve that purpose, it seems to me that a stoppage of work by a group of workers should possibly include the phrase"the stoppage of work by one or more workers"so that if one worker—our storekeeper in question—walks out he is still striking and not giving up his job.
It may be that it is not necessary to introduce those words because a concerted stoppage may not, for aught I know, mean that kind of stoppage at which everybody stops work at the same time. It may mean that all one has to do is to concert stoppage jointly and one can then walk out at different times. What effect that would have on the strike is a different matter. What effect it would have on the employer is a different matter if one adopted the alternative suggestion put forward, where 100 people walked out and the employer had to keep the whole of his factory open so that there would not be a lock-out against the one storekeeper remaining. We are in a difficulty in reconciling the concept of a strike where all walk out at the same time, and that of giving due notice, which is a necessary and wise precaution—due notice being a varying period of notice because the strikers who are all intending to go out at the same time are on different periods of notice.
The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that I have approached this matter sotto voce, treading with care; Agag has nothing on me.
I hope the noble and learned Lord will recognise this problem, and will be good enough to help us with his knowledge of the meaning of this clause and the impact on the law, as I have no doubt he wishes to help us to resolve this issue, which I think I have explained sufficiently. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord, whose delicate
562
gait we all admire, for explaining the exact point of this Amendment. I am bound to say that it baffled me and my advisers, because he is not proposing to leave out the word"concerted ", he is just inserting the phrase"a concerted stoppage of work by one or more workers ". I was troubled, as he has anticipated, by the thought that it was difficult to see how one worker could"concert"a stoppage. I was unable to find an answer, although I did have a fleeting glimpse of a managing director suddenly withholding his labour in order to bring pressure on the board to improve his pension rights; but I concluded that was not a strike or indeed a"concerted stoppage"unless he was a very unusual kind of person.
Therefore, I do not think this Amendment makes sense. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked me what I think was a legitimate question: supposing in a strike all the workers did not come out at the same time, could it be said to be a"concerted stoppage?". My answer would be in the affirmative, if it was working according to a concerted directive or plan. I thought that the noble Lord, with his command of English, unwittingly supplied the answer to his own question when he put to me the conundrum of what would happen if one worker came out a week afterwards because his contract of employment required him to do so. He described it as joining the strike. I think that is exactly what he would be doing. In other words, he would be joining the concerted stoppage of work, and if he gave due notice he would be protected to the same extent that anyone else would be protected. I am quite sure that this Amendment will not do, and I do not think the problem will be a real one in practice. I accept the general definition of"concerted"which the noble Lord tentatively and with Agag-like gait proposed for my acceptance.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, this is a happy occasion, because both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I are in entire agreement that the Amendment will not do. The Amendment was not put in so that it would do; it was put in so that it would elicit from the noble and learned Lord, a statement which I find wholly acceptable. I am

563
grateful to him. With your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: At this point I have a manuscript Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I beg to move yet another Amendment which I hope will find acceptance by the Government. It is a manuscript Amendment referring to the same definition of"strike ", and is:
Page 123, line 42, leave out second (" of ") and insert (" or ").
That will mean that instead of the words
" in contemplation of furtherance "
we shall have the words
" in contemplation or furtherance ".
I am encouraged to put forward the Amendment because I have been told by the noble and learned Lord that these are normal words which are regularly used in a wide variety of statutes. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I accept this Amendment. The noble Lord has discovered a misprint in the Bill. Lest it should be thought that it is necessary formally to amend misprints, I believe it is possible to improve the printing of a Bill without committing a misdemeanour and without Amendment, but I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn attention to the misprint and I accept the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 97E is consequential on Amendment No. 95F. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 14, leave out (" next following subsection ") and insert (" following provisions of this section ").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL had given Notice of Amendment No. 97F:
Page 125, line 2, at end insert—
(" and
(c) the reference to a trade dispute in section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 shall be construed as a reference to an industrial dispute as defined in subsection (1) of this section,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the repeal of the Trade Union Act 1871 leaves the expression"trade dispute"as used in Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 without a definition. This Amendment seeks to define it as an industrial dispute as defined in this clause. The Government have put down an Amendment (Amendment No. 98L, to Schedule 8), which indicates that they feel this is a necessary change—and upon the assumption that I am right in so supposing, and that they propose in due course to move Amendment No. 98L, I will not move my Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is acceptable. It is consequential on the repeals, and it is the intention of the Government to propose an Amendment at the appropriate place, which is in Schedule 8. On that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord, to whom I give my thanks for drawing my attention to this matter, will withdraw this particular Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord. I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 97G. This is another Amendment consequential on Amendment No. 95M.
Amendment moved—
Page 125, line 9, at end insert—
(" (3A) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section, for the purposes of this Act—

(a) service as a member of a police force, or as a special constable or as a member of any constabulary maintained by virtue of an enactment (including any local or private Act), or in any other capacity by virtue of which a person has the powers and privileges of a constable, shall not be regarded as work falling within paragraphs (a) to (c) of the definition of"worker"in that subsection, and accordingly a person shall not be regarded as a worker by reference to any such service; and

(b) in the definition of"employee"in that subsection the reference to a contract of employment does not include a contract to perform any such service as is mentioned in the preceding paragraph.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 97H:
Page 125, line 9, at end insert—
(" (3B) For the purposes of the definition of"industrial dispute"in subsection (1) of this section a dispute between a Minister of the Crown and one or more workers or organisations of workers shall, notwithstanding that the Minister is not the employer of any of the workers to whom the dispute relates, be regarded as a dispute between an employer and the worker or workers, or the organisation or organisations, in question if the dispute relates—

(a) to matters which have been referred for consideration by a joint body on which, by virtue of any provision made by or under an enactment, that Minister is represented, or

(b) to matters in respect of which a settlement cannot take effect without the exercise of a power conferred on that Minister by or under an enactment ").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this Amendment—I hope correctly. It is the one I referred to some time ago when I was dealing with the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I have now been advised that the Whitley Council point is expressly dealt with under paragraph (a) of the proposed Amendment, and the noble Lord's point is therefore covered. I hope that that will satisfy him. I beg to move.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 164 [Power to limit certain provisions of Act to major undertakings]:
6.54 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 97B:
Page 126, line 22, leave out (" 51 and 102(1)(b) ") and insert (" and 51 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a short point and I can explain it quite shortly. Clause 164 provides that, at any rate for a period of time, complaints are not to be brought under certain clauses of the Bill, which clauses are enumerated in subsection (2) of Clause 164. The clauses under which complaints are not to be brought include Clause 102(1)(b). In effect, the power given to the Secretary of State under Clause 164 is to prevent people from coming to the Industrial Court and asking for relief
566
to which they would otherwise be entitled. I believe that the general object of the clause, with which I do not quarrel, is to prevent an excessive build-up of cases and enable them to be spaced out, no doubt the Orders in Council, the Statutory Instruments, being cancelled as and when the Court becomes able to cope with the volume of cases which come before it.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the prohibition should not be applicable to cases which are brought under Clause 102(1)(b), and if noble Lords will look at that provision they will see that it is the provision which enables a complaint to be made if an employer has failed to disclose the information he is put under an obligation to disclose under Clause 56. If the parties have in some cases to be prevented, at any rate for the time being, from approaching the Court for the reason I gave, I nevertheless submit that the provision that the trade union side of the table in negotiations should be entitled to certain information is of such paramount importance that it would not be in the public interest or conduce to orderly negotiation if, in a given case, they were prevented by Statutory Instrument from seeking to enforce that right before the Industrial Court under Clause 102(1)(b).
This is a short point. We have already discussed in some considerable detail the provisions putting on employers an obligation to supply information, and the importance of those provisions has been stressed, and I believe accepted, on all sides of the House. I submit therefore that the Statutory Instrument ought not to be one which might apply to complaints under that clause, and I accordingly move to omit from subsection (2) the reference to that clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the effect of accepting this Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to impose a threshold on the provisions for disclosure of information to trade unions; that is to say, that he could not make an order precluding the Industrial Court from considering a complaint under Clause 102(1)(b) unless a specified number of persons were employed in the undertaking. The noble Lord will recall that the arguments for a threshold are based on considerations of case-load—the number of cases that

567
would be likely to come to the courts if one were not to impose a threshold—and limiting the load of the court by imposing one.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has already quoted what the Solicitor General has said, and of course we must all recognise that this is new legislation, and when there is new legislation of this kind it is difficult to predict with any accuracy the number of cases that will arise under each jurisdiction. Especially at an early stage of the Bill's operation, at the time when the institutions will be new, relatively untried and getting into their stride, as it were, it is important that the Government should have some means of controlling the case-load of the Court and of industrial tribunals. Otherwise, there is a danger of these bodies being swamped, perhaps in consequence of a single jurisdiction, and prevented from the exercise of any of their jurisdictions effectively. There may be a very heavy case-load in one jurisdiction (this is a matter we discussed at length, of course, on the question of dismissal) and that might effectively hold up the work of the whole field.
I believe that noble Lords opposite accept these arguments in principle, and they seem to accept this in respect of the various clauses mentioned in subsection (2), with the exception of the ones to which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has referred. I do not think there is a difference of principle between us on this point. I can appreciate that the case-load argument is not so compelling in the case of disclosure as in some other instances—particularly, for example, trade union recognition. But in these matters any Government must play safe, just as it is right for the Opposition to push the Government to go a little further on a particular question. The Government feel that the importance of providing for the efficiency of the Court in its early stages is of overriding importance. It is of course true that the obligation will remain. The only point is that complaints will not be able to be brought.
The Government feel that the caseload arising under Clauses 56 and 102(1)(b) will probably not be very great but we may easily be wrong, so a reserve power such as this is a useful safeguard.
568
If such a safeguard were not to hand, not only could the Industrial Court itself be in difficulties but the result might be a higher threshold for the other provisions mentioned in subsection (2). What the Government anticipate is that Clauses 56 and 102(1)(b) may be introduced with a threshold, which need not be as great as that for the recognition provisions; and in any event it will not be higher than the threshold for recognition. If, as is probable, there is no case-load problem, then the threshold can be lowered, and probably removed. There is no reason why a threshold here should necessarily require a complimentary threshold elsewhere.
As I have said, noble Lords opposite will appreciate that although trade union firms under the disclosure threshold will not be able to enforce their rights in the Industrial Court so long as the threshold remains, the duty imposed on employers under Clause 56 still applies as a moral obligation. Trade unions denied information will be able to point to the code of practice as well as to Clause 56, and of course this can have an indirect effect on other matters arising. I am not saying that such trade unions will be as strongly placed as trade unions in larger firms, but we do not think the disadvantage will be very great. So we think it right to take this power to impose a disclosure threshold, simply as a safety valve to guard against an unexpected case-load. Should the threshold prove unnecessary we shall reduce it or remove it with appropriate speed, and on that assurance I hope noble Lords will not press the Amendment.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will not think that I am being obstinate, but it emerges from his own speech that this is simply a question of balance. If one looks at Clause 164, one sees that, apart from Clause 102, six other clauses are referred to. I do not ask the Government to forgo their power in regard to those six other clauses but simply in relation to this Clause 102. The reason is that that clause is, I submit, of quite transcendent importance. I personally think that the provisions for giving information are among the most important provisions in the Bill. If the noble Lord were able to say that if we do not take power in relation to that clause as well there may easily be a log jam, and the Court may easily be hopelessly

569
cluttered up, then I would withdraw the Amendment. But it emerges from the noble Lord's own speech that this is a question of balance, and I should have thought it desirable at least to take out that clause. If the threshold is applied in each of the other cases, with great respect to the noble Lord, the chance of a build-up in the case-load simply because Clause 102 is excluded is very small indeed.
I listened carefully to the noble Lord, and I thought I detected a degree of uncertainty. I did not think he was strongly convinced, and I urgently ask him to say that this is not unreasonable. I make a request which is thoroughly in accord with the purposes of this Bill, which is to try to get orderly negotiating arrangements.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am bound to support what my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has said and to appeal to the noble Lord to reconsider what he has said, especially at this hour, which would be awkward for a Division, but which nevertheless—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No!
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, if it is not too awkward, then I withdraw that argument immediately, but I much prefer persuasion to force, as the noble Lord may have gathered from our approach to this Bill. May I underline what my noble friend has said so well? If the noble Lord will be good enough to look at subsection (2), of all the provisions in that subsection we are seeking to remove only this one. It is an extremely marginal point, and we are seeking it in an area where we feel that the Government are not helping in the reduction of inflation as much as they should. The third, and very telling point, is that this method of threshold which he has chosen—and I understand it—means that one eliminates those firms who are likely to transgress and leaves in those firms who are not likely to transgress. Of course, the German experience is that the biggest firms already give information and already have a practice of industrial relations which, broadly, is satisfactory. All one would wish to do so far as the code of practice is concerned is, as elsewhere in industry, to invite the worst to come up to the levels of the best and there would then be no problem at all.
570
I am underlining what my noble friend has said, and saying it very shortly because of the hour, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to meet us on this point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say another word on this point? I would be very glad to look at it, but I want to emphasise to the noble Lord that this is a discretionary power. I should also like to point out to the noble Lord that he himself has said that the case is very marginal. But there is no means of telling, and when we are introducing new legislation of this kind we do not know how many cases are likely to arise. The reasonable thing is that at the start of legislation of this kind we should see how we get on.
The noble Lord is aware that the information side is particularly difficult. He now says that the test is one of size: before, he said that the test was one of confidence. If there is confidence you do not need the powers. The test here is of size, but what he is saying is that the bigger ones are more likely to produce the information than the other ones.
I would emphasise that this is the case in the information sphere. We know that we are in some difficulty here because the Commission on Industrial Relations is itself looking into the whole question of information at this moment, so that this is perhaps one of the most uncertain spheres in the whole Bill, and where there is uncertainty of this kind it is reasonable to give a discretion. That is why we are asking for the power to impose a threshold here—nothing more than that. Having said that, as the noble Lord is aware, we are looking at the threshold figure which is actually in the Bill, and we shall look at this at the same time.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, in view of what has been said I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of this Bill he adjourned for one hour for consideration of the Medicine Bill.
Moved, That the further consideration of the Bill be adjourned.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

MEDICINES BILL
7.10 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT on HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, this Bill seeks to make a minor alteration in the provisions about fees to be charged for licensing under the Medicines Act 1968. The alteration is necessary because doubts have arisen as to the legal effect of the original provision and no policy considerations are involved. The Medicines Act 1968 makes provision for the licensing of manufacturers and wholesalers of medicinal products as well as for the issue of licences relating to medicinal products themselves. The Act contains transitional provisions as to products already effectively on the market and manufacturers and wholesale dealers carrying on business immediately before the first appointed day. For these, no licences are required during the transitional period and thereafter they are entitled to licences as of right. The criterion for the issue of these licences is simply that the licensing authority is satisfied that the products were effectively on the market or that manufacturers and wholesale dealers were carrying on business immediately before the first appointed day. On the other hand, licences for products marketed for the first time after the first appointed day may be issued only after consideration of the safety, efficacy and quality of these products; and licences for manufacturers and wholesale dealers commencing business after that date may be issued only after consideration of the adequacy of their equipment and facilities.
It was quite clearly the intention, when the Act was originally presented to Parliament, that fees should be charged in respect of the issue of both full licences and licences of right. In the provisions as to regulations about such fees (Section 128(3)) the draftsman used the word"power ". In the light of certain court rulings, it now seems doubtful whether power"as used in this context comprehends also the duty of issuing licences of right. As I have said, the only criterion for the issue of licences of right is that the transitional provisions in the Act are satisfied, and it may therefore be argued that the issue of a licence of right is a duty which the licensing authority
572
is required to discharge rather than a function which it is empowered to exercise. Since the number of new products likely to be introduced to the market and the number of new manufacturers and wholesale dealers beginning licensable business for the first time is small in relation to the number of existing products and dealers, it follows that if we were prevented from collecting fees in respect of licences of right, which, for the first five years at least, will be the greater proportion of licences issued, the whole burden of fees would have to fall on new licences.
The objective of the Bill is to deal with this situation by repealing the section about which doubts have been expressed and replacing it by an entirely new provision. This provision refers expressly to the issue of licences, certificates and directions, instead of using the more general phraseology previously employed. At the same time the opportunity has been taken to set out explicitly the precise ambit of the regulations which may be made under the provision. These provisions, which are contained in Clause 1(1)(b), are intended to make it clear that it is possible to include in the regulations provision for the payment of fees by instalments and for their refund in certain circumstances. If payment by instalments is to be permitted, it is a necessary corollary that the regulations may authorise the suspension of any licence in respect of which the instalments are in arrears.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are of a formal nature and necessary in order to apply various provisions of the principal Act. As a result of them, the Health and Agriculture Ministers will be required, before making any fees regulations, to consult bodies representative of the interests concerned, and the regulations themselves will require the concurrence of the Treasury and be subject to Parliamentary approval under the Negative Resolution procedure. The first appointed day for the purposes of the licensing scheme under the Act is to be September 1, 1971, and it is very desirable that this Bill should go through as quickly as possible so that the appropriate regulations may be made at the earliest possible date. I therefore should like the House to give the Bill a Second Reading,

573
and beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, before I come to my few observations on this small but significant Bill, I should perhaps declare a personal interest in this matter, as I act as consultant to a company which might be involved. I am not unfamiliar with the principal Act, the Medicines Act 1968, and I was surprised when I heard that there was any question as to the liability of those who apply for transitional licences. I have indicated to the noble Lord that I should be interested to know what are the rulings of the courts which have led to doubts being raised. The noble Lord said that these had arisen because of some uncertainty as to the use of the word"power"as opposed to the word"duty ". I hope he can give us a little more information in this regard. Secondly, I apprehend from his remarks that the provision which he is now moving covers both products and manufacturers' transitional licences. Perhaps he would clarify that point. I would say that my noble friends do not propose to oppose this Bill, which is relatively significant and logical.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think that this is the first time that we have heard him speak from the Opposition Front Bench, though he did so in another place, and may I say what a pleasure it is to see him there. The noble Lord very kindly gave me notice of his first question and I am glad that he did so, because it is a highly technical, legal subject and neither he nor I are lawyers; but I have been into it and find it an interesting subject. The courts have been obliged from time to time to distinguish between the words"powers"and"duties ". There was a case in Australia, Patch v. Ebbage, in which Mr. Justice Stanley said:
" As at present advised, I incline to the view that a duty is an express or implied obligation to do something; and a power is at least a capacity conferred by the Act to do something for the purpose of fulfilling a duty under the Act."
There was another case, Regina v. Waterfield in 1963, which was heard in
574
the High Court here. The court was concerned with the question of whether an assault on a police constable was an assault in the execution of his duty. The assault consisted in driving a car from a stationary position at the constable, who was standing in its path with raised hand. Mr. Justice Ashworth said:
" The argument involves considerable difficulties. In the first place its validity depends on the construction of the section which would enable the constable not merely to require a moving vehicle to stop, but to require a stationary vehicle not to move. The court finds it unnecessary to reach a conclusion on that because, in the second place, it is to be observed that the section is merely giving a power as opposed to laying down a duty."
There has been no ruling in the courts on the use of the word"power"in Section 128(3), and there has been no occasion for there to be one, because the provisions have not yet come into effect; as I said, they come into effect on September 1. However, the Act itself distinguishes in other provisions between the exercise of a power as distinct from the performance of a duty. Thus in Sections 3(2), 67(3) and 108(4) the distinction is drawn; in Sections 28(3) and (5) and 39(2) there are references to powers conferred; and in Sections 1(2), 2(1), 3(2) and 6(2) the functions of various bodies are referred to. This leads us to the conclusion that the word"power"in Section 128(3) must be construed with some exactitude, particularly as it is a provision which presents a liability to be imposed.
Licences of right are provided for by Sections 25 to 27 of the Act, and, since these provisions refer to entitlement to the grant of a licence, it would appear that in granting such an application the licensing authority would be performing a duty rather than exercising a power. Accordingly, it is necessary to replace Section 128(3), which contains no reference to the performance of a duty, by a new provision that will relate to all applications made under the Act. I hope that that is some explanation of the reason why there is a difficulty. The answer to the other question which the noble Lord asked is: Yes, it applies to the granting of all licences, both product licences and wholesalers' and manufacturers' licences.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble

575
Lord for his explanation of the fascinating duties and responsibilities of police constables.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

INVESTMENT AND BUILDING GRANTS BILL
7.22 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, in rising to make some remarks on this Bill, I owe your Lordships' House and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, a double apology. First of all, I did not speak on the Second Reading because I was unavoidably delayed by the running of trains. Secondly, I want to speak now because I want to draw attention to this Bill as one of the mosaic of measures anticipatory of entry to the Common Market which really do not add up to a consistent and helpful policy. As I shall not be able to speak in the provisional debate on entry into the Common Market, I should like to use this occasion to make certain remarks.
In the last few days, we have been exposed to very intensive propaganda about the advantages of entering into a larger market, the Common Market, and becoming members of the Community. We have been told that this will be especially advantageous to us, because the existence of a large market will enable our firms to adapt themselves to mass production much better than is the case at the moment, when they are restricted by the size of our market, and that we can therefore hope for a sudden transformation of our economic destiny—which at the moment I do not think even the Government would regard as very attractive. However, I fear that the policy behind this measure not merely does not add to our capacity to adapt ourselves to the Common Market, but deals a very severe blow to our capacity to resist the increased competition in the Common Market.
576
I know that the Prime Minister has a general euphoria about our present position, and believes that our current balance-of-payments surplus is sufficient to take the shock. I myself find it a little puzzling that that is the appreciation which he has been given because, on the whole, it is certain that our imports have risen in volume which, considering the increase in unemployment and the decrease in production which we have suffered, is an extraordinary conjuncture of events. Not only has that happened, but at the same time our exports rose in value, as a result of price rises, by two-thirds, but by only one-third in volume. The relative increase in imports was much greater than the relative increase in the volume of exports.
That is not a healthy situation, but that is not all. The direction of our market has changed. Whereas before we had a very healthy expansion in our exports to the Common Market, lately the Common Market has lagged behind as a market for our exports while the sterling area has been much the more prosperous market. According to the latest information which has been issued, the figures were 9 per cent. and 14 per cent. respectively. We shall undoubtedly undergo a shock when we go into the Common Market, because their protective duties are less than ours. Therefore, we shall immediately be faced with a situation in which their prices in our market will decrease more than our prices in their market. This can obviously be parried if intensified investment can be procured. Unfortunately, our general situation, which has made the current balance of payments so very favourable to us, is not conducive to an increase in investment; indeed, investment has fallen, not increased.
It is obvious that the firms which are going to be most hit are the smaller and less productive firms, and under this measure we shall move from outright grants, giving immediate relief and liquidity, to tax allowances which really amount to a delay in the receipt of the liquid resources. This Bill will favour only the bigger and more prosperous firms which have profits to be written off against their allowances. I fear, therefore, that the"think-tank"of Mr. Heath has not exactly been functioning well; or, to express it in a different way, the principles to which the Government

577
adhere so strongly have in one more case resulted in policies which are contrary to the professed aims of the Government.
Although we cannot do anything in this House about this Bill, I should like to put down a marker to the Government, through the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that this is perhaps the least propitious measure which has been proposed apropos of our entry into the Common Market. If we go on in this way, I fear that the very great hopes which have recently been expressed by the Prime Minister—whose very great hopes at the time of the Election have already been very rudely refuted by events—will be further refuted by events, and Britain, instead of becoming a prosperous and dynamic member and leader of the Common Market, may become the Ulster of Europe.
7.29 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, on Second Reading I spoke at length, and I think with some vehemence, because I have very strong feelings against this Bill, and I should have had nothing to say this evening, except to welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Balogh, were it not for the fact that there have been three extraordinary coincidences since the Second Reading. The first thing is the publication of the rate of investment for the first quarter of this year, which I note, according to The Times this morning, has fallen by 13 per cent. It is a horrifying figure. We were worried when the Labour Government were in office because the rate of rise was too small: we now have an absolute fall. The second thing which has happened is the debate in another place, in which the Prime Minister, in facing the fact that investment grants were in use in the E.E.C. and that there was likely to be some limitation on the size of the grant for all members of the E.E.C., in order to create non-competitiveness in this business of investment, undertook that if this situation emerged he would be prepared to reintroduce investment grants in this country at the rate then operating with our future partners in the Common Market. That was an extraordinary thing for him to commit himself to, in the light of the fact that the Bill abolishing investment grants is not yet through this House.
578
The third and perhaps even more important thing, again reported in The Times today (and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to confirm that it is true, because I welcome it), is a very substantial move indeed. In relation to investment allowances the practice followed by the Inland Revenue for many years, where such allowances applied, has been to allow companies to write off the capital value of plant, up to the limit of their investment allowances, against the profits of the previous year or of the current year. What is reported in The Times to-day is that this practice is going to be changed, and that in future firms will be entitled to set their investment allowances against capital depreciation, up to the limit allowed, against the last three years' profits. This is quite staggering. Admittedly, this applies only to capital investment in the development areas, but it is going to make a staggering difference; and it is a recognition of the fact that many of the heavier industries, and the more important industries, particularly in the development areas, have not got current profits against which to write off their capital allowances—the very point I made on Second Reading. I am not conceited enough to imagine that my speech caused the Government to change their mind, but if ever one thing followed another in logical progression those two things did so.
My Lords, this is extremely important. It is an alleviation of the rigours of the total abolition of investment grants. But I would point out that, taking into account that investment grants are not apparently being abolished in Northern Ireland because, economically, it is regarded as a very depressed area; taking into account the fact that this alleviation for capital expenditure in the development areas is being produced even before this Bill is through to alleviate the rigours of the abolition of investment grants; taking into account the drop in investment; taking into account the fact that the Prime Minister himself has now agreed that in certain circumstances he will be prepared to reintroduce investment grants at the 20 per cent. level, I think that this exercise of introducing a Bill to abolish investment grants progressively continues to look more and more absurd. I am very sorry that we can do nothing about it.
7.34 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is fortunate that we have a fairly flexible procedure and can discuss the Common Market and Amendments to a Bill going through the other place in the context of the Third Reading of this Bill. Nevertheless, I am glad to be able to confirm the development which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, noticed from to-day's newspaper—and I am glad he welcomes this development. The fact is that since we last debated this Bill, on July 2, the Government have introduced a significant improvement to the free depreciation allowance in the development areas. A Government Amendment to the Finance Bill introduced in another place on July 7 has had the effect of permitting companies, as the noble Lord said, to carry back any excess of free depreciation over current taxable profits and to set it off against their trading profits in the preceding three years. Previously, as he said, companies could go back only one year.
The effect of that Amendment will be that companies which have traded profitably in recent years but which are not now trading at a profit substantial enough to cover fully the free depreciation on their investment in machinery or plant in development areas will be able to reclaim corporation tax paid on the basis of trading profits of two more earlier years than was previously possible. This will provide immediate liquid funds for investment. Moreover, it will not be a requirement that the trading profits of those earlier years should have arisen from activities in a development area. Thus a company operating a new establishment in a development area will be able to offset free depreciation on development area immobile machinery or plant against profits of its trade earned in the previous years outside the development area. This new provision is therefore a valuable addition to the improved incentives available to firms moving into or expanding in development areas. I am glad to be able to confirm what the noble Lord said in those terms.
Turning to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, before the noble Lord turns, as I hope he is
580
going to, to the very interesting and relevant speech of my noble friend Lord Balogh, surely he is going to answer the questions that were put by my noble friend Lord Brown. He was not asking for an explanation of what has been done in another place. We know what has been done in another place. We are perfectly capable of following the Report of proceedings there. What I think my noble friend was asking was: what is the logic of passing a Bill of this kind, even though we have got as far as the Third Reading, if it is now found necessary to back-pedal in the other place and to enhance the value of the investment allowances? What is being done there is carrying out a policy which is completely contrary to the policy of this Bill, and we cannot understand why the noble Lord, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, should wish to persist with this Bill when it is now being found essential to do something completely contrary.
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, I cannot agree that that is so; it is not back-pedalling. The Bill is a change from investment grants, which was the policy of the previous Government, to tax allowances; and the change which has been made in the Finance Bill in another place is not a change back from our system to their system; it is a development of the system which this Bill introduces.
Perhaps I may now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, who was speaking of this proposal in the context of our entry into the Common Market. The noble Lord has used this occasion to develop the theme that our capacity successfully to overcome the impact of entry into Europe has been undermined by the Government's decision to replace investment grants by taxation allowances. I do not think there is any dispute between us as to the need for increased investment in industrial plant and machinery. The need exists, and it will continue to exist whether or not we join the E.E.C. The argument is much more about means, not about ends. On means, we have on many occasions made our position quite clear and there is no need to repeat all that I said at Second Reading. Put simply, our view is that investment grants were wasteful of resources because they were given to

581
profitable and unprofitable firms alike, whereas taxation allowances—
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is it not clear that the people who most need an improvement in their capital structure, their plant and machinery, are the unsuccessful firms? The Government have already changed the tax allowances by allowing back-clawing of profits tax into the current situation. Cannot they go further and really acknowledge that capital grants have not been wasteful? The grants enabled an increase in productivity and would have allowed further increase in productivity, which at this particular, very critical juncture is more important than at any other time.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think we can go back over that ground again. I recognise that there is a gulf between us and I certainly cannot bridge it. It was revealed for the umpteenth time at Second Reading. I appreciate that noble Lords opposite think that investment grants are the best way of helping in intermediate areas and development areas and in investment generally; we think taxation allowances are the best way. I do not think there is any point in continuing with that discussion; it was fully discussed at Second Reading. But I should like to continue on the point about the relevance of all this in our approach to the Common Market. Our view is that investment grants were wasteful of resources, whereas taxation allowances will encourage investment.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord has said twice that investment grants were wasteful of resources. This is highly offensive. There is no evidence in the possession of the Government to support this. In order to get evidence, if there was any, they would have had to intervene and explore the efficiency of every industry in the country to see how they used the money to invest. It is really distressing to hear the Government repeat this statement that investment grants were wasteful, as though all the companies who had received these grants had wasted them. That is the general inference. The Government have a different opinion from the Opposition on this, but to go on castigating thousands
582
of industries that they were wasting the support that the Labour Government provided for them through investment grants is really most painful to us.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not want to go on saying it, and if noble Lords will let me get on I will deal with the point the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, raised. I will not go back over the paragraph I tried to reach the end of. It has been suggested that the move away from cash grants towards the new and improved system of taxation allowances, at least as a regional incentive, may be in conflict with E.E.C. policies. Now we come to the particular point the noble Lord wanted to raise. We do not think this is the case. The E.E.C. at this moment is only in the early stages of formulating a regional policy for the Community as a whole, and so at present individual countries follow their own regional policies. A basic aim of the Treaty of Rome, stated in the Preamble, is the reduction of disparities between regions. The Community recognises the major role of member States in this and makes special provision for them to pursue their own regional policies. These individual policies vary, and some at least have similarities to our own. We see no reason why we should not be able to continue to operate vigorous regional policies in areas suffering from problems of unemployment and structural adjustment.
Nor, as we understand the position, are our own policies likely to conflict with the principles behind proposals recently made by the Commission. A major objective of the Commission's proposals is to prevent member countries from outbidding each other for investment, especially in their prosperous central areas. This appears to us entirely reasonable and, indeed, to our advantage. The Commission's purpose in proposing a common policy—they have only just begun to do this—to provide balanced economic development, coincides with our own purpose. Finally, it is our understanding that any objection which may be expressed by the E.E.C. to tax-based incentives rests on the principle that investment incentives of whatever kind should be"transparent"(the term they use) in the sense that the amount of benefit is clear to all concerned and

583
that there is no element of hidden subsidy. We believe that the new system provided for in this Bill would be regarded as quite as transparent as any of the systems now in operation in any of the E.E.C. countries, a number of which use accelerated depreciation allowances as well as grants. I hope that what I have said answers, even if it does not satisfy, the point the noble Lord raised.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I beg to move, That the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL
8.10 p.m.
Consideration on Report resumed.
BARONESS SEEAR BARONESS SEEAR moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 126, line 22, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that in relation to any trade or industry or section of a trade or industry, the maintenance of any one or more of the general principles set out in section 1(1) of this Act so requires, he may by order made by statutory instrument provide that any one or more of the provisions of this Act shall cease to apply to that trade or industry or section of a trade or industry as the case may be.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Archibald. This Amendment is in no sense an attack on the principles laid down in Clause 1 of this Bill; but the best of principles must, on occasion, be allowed to have exceptions. The Amendment is being moved for a very particular case, as I think many of your Lordships are aware, and for what can indeed be regarded as a unique case: the case of Equity, which has already been discussed at considerable length in debates on this Bill at previous Sittings. The reason why we are asking your Lordships to consider this Amendment is that in the case of Equity, as the noble and learned Lord,
584
Lord Gardiner, explained in the previous discussion of this subject, the theatrical profession is pre-eminently an occupation which is seriously overcrowded and which attracts to it a very large number of enthusiasts who are prepared to work under conditions which are quite abnormal in comparison with the conditions in any other kind of employment. I think it is the view of practically everybody connected with this profession that unless there is some restriction on entries into the profession, the condition, already serious, of many people in its employment will get considerably worse. Thus, the requirement to belong to Equity is a requirement quite exceptionally in the interests of people engaged in the theatrical profession.
It may well be said that the problem has been met by the inclusion of the clauses dealing with the approved closed shop. On paper, no doubt this could be used as a way of dealing with the problems of Equity, but the requirements in order to fulfil what is needed to be an approved closed shop are long and complex. It is very likely that the time that would elapse before such provision could be applied to the case of Equity would mean a serious deterioration in a profession in which the situation is already highly unsatisfactory. We are moving this Amendment because it provides a quick and simple way of dealing with a very special problem. It is the avoidance of delay and the ability to deal with the matter quickly which is of the essence of the case and the reason for our moving the Amendment. We hope, recognising, as I am sure your Lordships do, that this is a particular case, that you will look again at the Amendment and the arguments behind it, and will consider incorporating it into the Bill in the interests of this very unusual occupation.
LORD BERNSTEIN: My Lords, the other night my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said that part of the discussions on this Bill, in the Report stage especially, have been a dialogue of the deaf. I do not know whether this Amendment moved by the noble Baroness is to be another case of a dialogue of the deaf. A number of people have spoken on the Equity and A.C.T.T. situation, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner made a most moving and well-balanced

585
speech about two weeks ago. Nothing has happened, and I wonder whether nothing will happen again. I should like it to go on record that I have known Equity and have worked with them for about thirty years. They have been a most responsible organisation and have made a great contribution to the theatre. I cannot see any reason why anybody who believes in industrial relations, and in advancement in industrial relations, would wish to hurt Equity in any way. There is nothing more to be said about the Equity case. It has been written about, spoken about, discussed. I urge the Minister, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor if he is dealing with this, to take a new look at this suggestion, in the hope that this will he the solution. I support the Amendment.
8.16 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will appreciate that we have spent a great deal of time on the Committee and the Report stage of this Bill in discussing this problem. This is not the last ditch but the penultimate ditch, because there is one further proposal with which the Government are acquainted, and I do not know whether we can have any reference at all to that to-night. In fact, it is not covered by this particular Amendment. It may be that the Government feel that this Amendment is drawn a little wide. One could understand that. But I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, and the others who sponsored this Amendment, have put it down because we are assured, by those who have knowledge, that the Bill as it stands does not achieve the object as far as Equity is concerned. We have said this on a number of occasions and have tried various means of meeting the Government's points and at the same time trying to help a union which, as my noble friend Lord Bernstein has said, is regarded by those who have worked with it as a model of its kind. It is they who keep assuring us that they just do not believe that the Bill in its present form can conceivably work. They consider that the sort of timetable which is envisaged in the procedure just will not prove practical in the conditions which apply in the theatrical and cinematographical industries. They also feel that the assurances
586
given by the Secretary of State for Employment—absolutely sincere, as we are sure they are—because they will depend on completely fresh legislation, simply will not be enacted in time.
Therefore, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide a speedier method, and if our apprehensions prove correct, then the Secretary of State will be able to give effect to the pledges which he has given much more rapidly than if he had to embark on a completely fresh Bill, going through all its stages in both Houses of Parliament. It is as simple as that. We just do not believe that the Bill is adequate. The Secretary of State says that it may not be; he admits that there is an element of doubt. He has given his word that if the apprehensions prove correct they will be met, but he has suggested doing so by legislation. It is suggested here that if further action is required he should take powers in this Bill to do it by Statutory Instrument. I hope very much that after all the discussion that we have had and the hours that we have spent on this problem, which is still unresolved, the Government will accept this as a possible method of getting round these difficulties,
This leaves it completely open to the Secretary of State. He is under no compulsion. He will be listening to arguments as to the way in which the Bill has in fact worked out in practice. He will have complete discretion as to whether or not he wishes to introduce a Statutory Instrument. This gives him the opportunity to carry out the pledge which he has given in writing, which we have all seen, but to do it in a timely way, which will at least remove the very deep anxiety—and I would stress this to your Lordships—that Equity feel, that the organisation which has been built up over years will be ruined. Your Lordships may think that that is an exaggeration, but that is the view they take. They do not believe that they can hold the position with the Bill as it stands with the kind of procedure which they will be obliged to go through, and they are really fearful for the state of their organisation. Therefore the question of time is of the essence, and use of a Statutory Instrument, as we all know, is a much more rapid way of proceeding when trying to find a place in the always overcrowded

587
list of legislation. I hope that these arguments will prevail on the Government and that they will see fit to accept the Amendment.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, this Amendment is to enable the Secretary of State to exempt particular trades or industries or sections of them from the provisions of the Bill. If, for example, the Secretary of State were to give Equity exemption, I ask whether any other union could take advantage of that and also ask for exemption. It is difficult in legislation to allow one party to get out of the provisions of an Act. I ask whether there would be any possibility of other unions being able to claim exemption under this measure if this Amendment were accepted.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, surely this points to the weakness of the whole situation. The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, has just told us that if this provision gave one particular union the possibility—but only if the Secretary of State agrees—of opting out of certain conditions of this Bill, it would open that possibility to everyone else. That seems to me to have been the thinking throughout this Bill in many respects: if the slightest concession is made to some of the professions, well then there is the danger that all kinds of trades will use it for their own ends. But it still rests with the Government; it still rests with the Secretary of State. I hope that the Government will take a liberal view of this matter and preserve for themselves a certain freedom of action.
8.22 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot help thinking that it was a little ungrateful of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, to make that last interjection, because the suggestion he made was that we were resisting the slightest concession. Yet he knows perfectly well that we have made concession after concession throughout the passage of this Bill. There was a notable concession this afternoon, and I need go no further back than the time just before we adjourned during pleasure. It is not good enough, after we have made concession after concession to professions, to say that we are not prepared to make the slightest concession.
588
There was a great deal in what my noble friend Lord Balfour said. I was much relieved, when the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, moved the Amendment, to know that within this extremely wide frame of words all that she and the noble Lord, Lord Bernstein, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, were really concerned with was one particular union. As noble Lords will remember, we have had a great deal of discussion about that particular union, and I suppose it is not the least bit of good my repeating what we have said again and again; that is, that we have not the slightest intention of letting Equity die. We are not in the least bit convinced that the solitary peg upon which its future continued existence depends is a pre-entry closed shop or, as the union prefers to call it, a point of entry closed shop.
Not a single Member of your Lordships' House who has spoken has even pretended to support that case to-day, and that is the point at which we become a little sceptical. We have made provisions which have within their purview employees among a group of two unions only which are specially protected. It may be that those particular provisions are not by themselves enough, but we have again and again stated our belief that any further protection that is required could be provided by agreement between the union and the employer on conditions of entry into the theatrical profession, provided that such conditions did not include a pre-entry condition of membership of a particular trade union. We do not believe that that is necessary.
Certainly listening to the case which was presented on this Amendment I have heard no speaker so far produce the smallest scintilla of evidence that that is necessary. I accept, of course, that people are anxious, and the noble Baroness was right to say that they were anxious about it. But what one has to consider in this case is not simply public anxiety, whether the anxieties are justified or not. The partticular anxiety which has to be justified here is the belief, for which no evidence has been provided, that, despite the provisions for a post-entry closed shop retained in the Bill and despite the possibility of arriving at conditions of entry into the profession other than a pre-entry closed shop which could be negotiated with the existing employers' association,

589
only a pre-entry closed shop will do. This is not self-evident and there has been no evidence put forward to support it.
I must remain completely agnostic on the truth of it. We have said again and again that we respect Equity, that we respect the theatrical profession, but we do not believe that it will die and we do not intend that it should. I am not at all convinced that legislation is the only means by which to protect Equity. Another assertion made by the noble Baroness was that it might die so quickly that no help could be brought. That is another unproved assertion made by the noble Baroness—but none of these things is clear. I was relieved when the noble Baroness who proposed the Amendment—I was speaking a sentence ago about the noble Baroness. Lady White—suggested that this wide frame of words applied to only one union. It applies, as my noble friend Lord Balfour pointed out, not only to one union but it has in its phraseology the very dispensing power which cost James II his throne, although in those clays there was not the protection of a Statutory Instrument for some degree of Parliamentary control which in another context every Member of this House has in his Parliamentary career, which was totally inadequate but which now exists.
My noble friend Lord Balfour, was perfectly right, but he did not go nearly far enough. This Amendment, if passed, would allow the Secretary of State, on his simple say-so, to dispense with any union—or, I may add, any employers' association, because it is not limited to unions; and that is where my noble friend did not go far enough—from any provisions of the Bill or, so far as I can make out, from all of them, simply on his say-so and on the ground that any one of the principles in Clause 1 of the Bill would thereby be assured. As a matter of fact, it would not give much comfort to Equity if this Amendment were accepted, because the case for Equity, as I understand it, is not that the principles of the Bill are in jeopardy if a pre-entry closed shop is not accepted. This is far from being their contention. Their contention is that if a pre-entry closed shop is not accepted, the theatrical profession will be flooded with large numbers of entrants who will jeopardise the standard of life of those who practise in it.
590
But that is not provided for in the Amendment. So now you have an Amendment which would enable the Secretary of State to dispense with the whole law, on his simple say-so, by Statutory Instrument, subject to the degree of Parliamentary control which that involves, if he is satisfied that one or more of the principles in the Bill are thereby assured, when in fact all he had in mind is the particular situation of an unusual union for which special provision has been made in the Bill and whose particular case does not depend on any of the single principles in Clause 1. Of all the attractive solutions that have been prescribed at one time or another for this particular problem, this is probably the least satisfactory. But we shall continue to consider this matter. All I am concerned with now is this particular Amendment. I would say to the House that, whatever the other merits of the question, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that he would be good enough to continue considering the matter, which is always a welcome phrase, and that this was a very wide Amendment. I do not think anybody disputes that; but the noble and learned Lord referred to all the other attractive Amendments which had been put before the House. The trouble about those is that they have all been turned down, and at the end of the day one is compelled to do something. As we get nearer and nearer to the end of the Bill, the particular form of the Amendment has very much to be tailored to what little ground is left on which to place it. The noble and learned Lord said that our anxiety was, and indeed is—and we are grateful that he understands it so well—that before the care which he has in mind could be applied, Equity might die and there would be no proof. The last thing that we want to do is to be in a position to prove the noble and learned Lord wrong by producing the body.
This is a very wide Amendment and of course it is for the noble Baroness who moved it to decide what to do. It is easy for the noble and learned Lord to make the case that this is not the most suitable Amendment. Perhaps those of us who are very concerned about this

591
matter but feel that it could be dealt with perhaps in a slightly different way, will feel that there is some consolation to be drawn from the noble and learned Lord's remarks that he still has the matter under consideration.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, since the noble and learned Lord said that he would keep this matter under consideration and since there will be a further opportunity to discuss it at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 166 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
8.35 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98C:
Page 127, line 9, at end insert (" or of different provisions of any enactment so specified ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is intended to give greater flexibility to the provisions for the amendment and repeal of existing legislation. We submit that there are advantages in having such a power in reserve. For instance, an Amendment has been accepted (No. 93A) enabling the Secretary of State to make regulations concerning nominations by members of trade unions. That was dealt with last night. The present procedure operates under Section 10 of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act 1876 and it will be useful in that case to have the power to defer repeal of Section 10 when the rest of the Act is repealed. It may turn out that the power does not need to be used, but it is clear that some flexibility is desirable, in view of the large number of enactments amended or repealed in Schedules 8 and 9, and I hope that the House will agree that it is a wise precaution to make this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98G:
Page 127, line 15, leave out (" as appears ") and insert (" or savings as appear ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the power conferred by subsection (2) of this clause, the Bill will be brought into operation in different stages, and subsection
592
(4) allows the Secretary of State to make such transitional arrangements as are necessary for the partial operation of the Act. But we are not certain that subsection (4) is wide enough to provide for satisfactory arrangements concerning the existing rules governing industrial tribunals. At present, industrial tribunals operate under regulations made by the Secretary of State in consequence of powers conferred by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965. The relevant sections of that Act are repealed in Section 9, and Clause 100(2) provides that the parallel provisions in Schedule 6 of the Bill will have effect in substitution for them. The problem is the volume of work involved. It is not entirely certain that it will be possible to re-write all these provisions before the Act comes into force. This Amendment will enable the existing regulations to continue so long as is necessary. This could possibly be done under subsection (4) as it stands at the moment; but the Amendment, by referring to the word"savings ", puts beyond doubt both the Government's intentions and the power taken under this subsection. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I do not wish to delay the House but I should like to ask one question. Can the noble Lord tell me where in this Amendment, or in the clause that it seeks to amend, the Secretary of State is compelled to bring in any part of the Bill at any particular time? We were much entertained during a previous Amendment by the statement that the Secretary of State could do almost anything. I want to be assured that it is not a case that the Secretary of State can refrain for ever from bringing in any part of the Bill.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not know that we are entirely on the same point. The effect of the Amendment is purely transitional. It is simply to continue the status quo until new regulations about industrial tribunals can be re-written. I do not think that I was putting the same point as the noble Lord.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 98E:
Page 127, line 30, at end insert (" or to the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another small technical Amendment which refers to the Northern Ireland Government. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 reserves to Westminster the right to legislate on certain matters, including merchant shipping. Tucked away in Schedule 8 to this Bill is a small Amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act 1970. It has been pointed out that, for the sake of consistency, the Amendment should extend to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Schedule 8 [Enactments Amended]:
8.40 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98L:
Page 165, line 14, at end insert—

" The Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875 (33 & Vict. c. 86).

In section 3, for the words"a trade dispute"there shall be substituted the words"an industrial dispute within the meaning of the Industrial Relation Act 1971 ".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98L. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to ensure that the definition of"industrial dispute"in the Bill applies to the words"trade dispute"in Section 3 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act of 1875. This proposal was, of course, contained in the earlier Amendment (No. 97F) to Clause 163, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and the House will be grateful to the noble Lords for drawing this point to our attention. The only reason for not accepting their Amendment as it stood was that in our view this Schedule and this form of words were rather more appropriate to an Amendment of this sort. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 98H:
Page 165, line 22, column 2, after (" 1971 ") insert (" not being an organisation for the time being entered in the special register maintained under section 84 of that Act ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Its purpose is to exclude organisations on the special register from the scope of the Trade
594
Union Act 1913 so that they are not subject to the restraints imposed by the Act on expenditure for political purposes. The 1913 Act is amended by Schedules 8 and 9 in such a way that the only provisions remaining operative will be those relating to restraints on expenditure for political purposes. These are not appropriate to the types of organisations which will be admitted to the special register; that is to say, organisations which are incorporated by Charter or Letters Patent or which are registered under the Companies Act 1948. Political activities are outside the normal range of activities carried on by chartered bodies and if any organisation registered as a company were to adopt political objects it would be required by Section 19 of the Companies Act 1967 to publish details of such expenditure. To apply the provisions of the Trade Union Act 1913 would, I suggest, only create unnecessary duplication. I beg to move.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 98J:
Page 166, line 15, at end insert—

(" The Road Haulage Wages Act, 1938(1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 44).

In section 15(1), for the definition of"Trade Union"there shall be substituted the words"' Trade Union ' means an organisation of workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 ".)

The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948(11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 39)

In section 6(1), for the words"or a trade union (whether registered or unregistered)"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation of workers within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or an organisation of employers within the meaning of that Act ".

In section 16(4), for the words"trade union"there shall be substituted the words"organisation of workers or organisation of employers ".

The Insurance Companies Act 1958 (6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 72)

In section 1, in subsection (5), the words"or to trade unions"shall be omitted, and after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection:
" (5A) Where an organisation is either—

(a) a trade union or an employers' association within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971, or

(b) an organisation for the time being entered in the provisional register maintained under section 78 of that Act,

carries on insurance business, this Act does not apply to it as an insurance company if the insurance business is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits ".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 98J and 98K together since their purposes are related. The three parts of the first Amendment, 98J, together with Amendment 98K are each needed to maintain broadly the present application of the Acts mentioned. Each of these Acts applies in some way to trade unions, and with the re-definition of that term in this Bill it is necessary to make clear how the Acts will henceforth apply and whether to unregistered or registered organisations.
The Amendment retains the present practice of applying parts of the Road Haulage Wages Act 1938 and the Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948 to both registered and unregistered organisations. The Amendment to the Insurance Companies Act 1958 and the Amendment to the Companies Act 1967 together ensure that registered organisations of workers and employers, including those on the provisional register will continue to be able to undertake insurance business without having to have their activities regulated by the Insurance Companies Act. The associated repeals in these two Acts are set out in Amendments Nos. 99E and 101 to Schedule 9. The Amendments to Schedule 8 are designed to ensure that the re-definition of a trade union's objects in this Bill will have no significant effect on the types of insurance business in which trade unions and employers' associations are permitted to engage. I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. The only question I should like to ask him is that, inasmuch as his speech was exactly the same speech as I would have anticipated if these Amendments had appeared at the Committee stage instead of the Report stage, could he kindly explain what change in the Bill has necessitated, or what change in Government thinking has necessitated, the introduction of these provisions at this stage?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I do not think there is any change. I am consolidating what has been agreed—I know not with the agreement of noble Lords opposite—in Committee and at Report in our previous proceedings.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 98F:
Page 167, column 2, leave out lines 10 to 13 and insert—
(" In section 1—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), for the words"two or more trade unions may amalgamate and become one trade union"there shall be substituted the words"two or more organisations to which this Act applies may amalgamate and become one such organisation ", for the words"those unions"there shall be substituted the words"those organisations ", and for the words"amalgamating unions"there shall be substituted the words"amalgamating organisations ";

(b) in subsection (1)(b), for the words"a trade union may transfer its engagements to any other trade union"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies may transfer its engagements to any other such organisation ", and for the words"transferor union"there shall be substituted the words"transferor organisation ";

(c) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—

" (1A) In this Act"organisation to which this Act applies"means an organisation which is either—

(a) an organisation of workers within the meaning of the Act of 1971, not being an organisation for the time being entered in the special register, or

(b) an organisation of employers within the meaning of that Act, not being an organisation which is for the time being registered as a company under the Companies Act 1948,

but which (in either case) is not a Northern Ireland union.";

(d) in subsections (2) to (6), for the words"the union"wherever they occur,"a trade union"and"any trade union"there shall be substituted respectively the words"the organisation ","an organisation"and"any organisation ".

In section 2—

(a) for the words"trade unions"and"a trade union ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted respectively the words"organisation"and"an organisation "; and

(b) for the word"union"wherever it occurs (except as part of the expression"trade union ") there shall be substituted the word organisation ".

In section 3—

(a) for the words"Where a trade union proposes to transfer its engagements to

597
another trade union"there shall be substituted the words"Where an organisation to which this Act applies proposes to transfer its engagements to another such organisation "; and

(b) for the word"union"wherever it occurs (except as part of the expression"trade union ") there shall be substituted the word"organisation ".

In section 4—

(a) for the words"a trade union"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies ";

(b) for the words"the union"and"the trade union ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words"the organisation "; and

(c) for the words"the High Court ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words"the National Industrial Relations Court ".

In section 5—

(a) for the words"trade union"and"trade unions ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted respectively the words"organisation"and"organisations ";

(b) for the words"unions"and"union ", wherever they occur (except as part of the expression"trade unions"or"trade union ") there shall be substituted respectively the words"organisations"and"organisation ".

In section 6—

(a) in subsections (1) and (3), for the words"a trade union"there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies ", and for the words"the union"there shall he substituted the words"the organisation ";

(b) for subsection (2) there shall he substituted—

" (2) In the case of a trade union or an employers' asociation, a change of name shall not take effect until it is registered by the Registrar under this Act; and the Registrar shall not register a change of name if it is identical with that by which another organisation is for the time being registered as a trade union or employers' association under the Act of 1971 or this Act, or by which an organisation is for the time being entered in the special register, or if it is a name so nearly resembling the name by which another organisation is so registered or entered as, in the opinion of the Registrar, to be likely to deceive."

In section 9(1), for the words from"the amalgamating unions"to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the following words—

" the Act of 1971" means the Industrial Relations Act 1971;

" the amalgamating organisations"and"the amalgamated organisation ", in relation to a proposed amalgamation, mean respectively the organisations proposing to amalgamate and the organisation which is to result from the proposed amalgamation;

" employers' association"has the same meaning as in the Act of 1971;

598

" Northern Ireland union"has the meaning assigned to it by section 10 of this Act;

" organisation to which this Act applies"has the meaning assigned to it by section 1(1A) of this Act;

" the Registrar ", in relation to any matter authorised or required by or under this Act to be dealt with by the Registrar, means—

(a) the Chief Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, or

(b) any assistant registrar appointed under section 63 of the Act of 1971 who, in accordance with any general or special directions given by the said Chief Registrar, is authorised or required to act in relation to that matter;

" the special register"means the register maintained under section 84 of the Act of 1971;

" trade union"has the same meaning as in the Act of 1971;

" the transferor organisation"and"the transferee organisation," in relation to a proposed transfer of engagements, mean respectively the organisation proposing to transfer its engagements and the organisation proposing to accept them.

In section 10(2), for the words"a trade union ", there shall be substituted the words"an organisation to which this Act applies ".
In Schedule 1, for the words"the trade union"and"the union ", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words"the organisation ".
In Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 1, for the words"a trade union"there shall be substituted the words an organisation to which this Act applies ";

(b) in paragraph 2(1), for the words the trade union or trade unions"there shall be substituted the words"the organisation or organisations "; and

(c) in paragraph 4, for the words"is to be a trade union or"there shall be substituted the words"is, or is not, to be ".")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. The effect of this Amendment is to apply the provisions of the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Act 1964 to organisations of workers and employers as defined in Clauses 61 and 63 of the Bill, and to transfer responsibility for the administration of the Act from the Registrar of Friendly Societies to the Registrar of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations. The Amendment incorporates and replaces the Amendment to Section 4 subsection (8) which is at present included in the Schedule. This is a consequential Amendment to the Act which follows from Clause 114 subsection (2) of the Bill. The changes look very formidable

599
in character but the purpose is very simple. I naturally asked whether it would have been possible to have expressed this in shorter language, but I am told that this is the most convenient way to do it for the future.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I assume he was speaking to 98F. It was not all that clear. As I have read these provisions I understand that what the Government have been good enough to do is to change their mind with regard to non-registered unions—and we are very grateful for any change of mind in that direction—and to apply the helpful provisions of the Act which permits mergers and amalgamations to organisations of workers as well as to trade unions.
I should like to thank him for that, and to say that in this case I therefore understand why this Amendment is brought in, namely, that when the Government started out they had a different policy in mind and, during the course of the debates, they have been persuaded to change it very very slightly. I take the opportunity of saying this because when large Amendments are introduced we are entitled to know why it is that they are introduced at the Report Stage. From a previous answer one might have thought that it was the deliberate policy of the Government to introduce a Bill that was incomplete and to maintain its incompleteness until one got to the Report Stage. I am sure the Government did not have that intention, and so I hope the noble Lord, when we come to the remaining Amendments, will be good enough to explain what changes in Government thinking during Report Stage have produced Amendments which the Government are seeking to produce. I hope I have made it clear. I merely got up to say,"Thank you ".
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful for the noble Lord's thanks. They seemed to take several sentences but I am nonetheless grateful for his thanks. But may say quite frankly to the House that a Bill of this length and complexity, and the length of the Committee Stage, made us doubtful whether Amendments which were not obviously of a contentious nature ought to be poured into the Marshalled List at the Committee stage, and
600
for that reason we retained some Amendments until the Report stage. I see nothing whatsoever improper in that. We have to arrange the business of the House in a way which is tolerable to the House and I hope that this is tolerable. This is not a complicated Amendment and it is not a matter on which we have changed our minds.
Of course you can have amalgamations of organisations and workers, whether they are registered or not. Amalgamations may take place between registered organisations and unregistered organisations. If they are pure amalgamations they will have no doubt to rewrite their rules and apply for registration. If, on the other hand, there has been a takeover by a trade union of an organisation of workers, then the rules of the registered trade union will apply and no further action will be required. There is no mystery about this, but I thought I ought to make the position quite clear.
8.51 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect, my Lords, this seems rather curious Parliamentary doctrine. I am well aware that in this House, as opposed to another place, one can still make Amendments on Third Reading. It surprises me that the Government should say,"We did not put things down at the Committee stage because the Marshalled List was overcrowded and we thought we would leave them for Report." Is that entirely fair to your Lordships' House? Is that entirely fair to the Opposition? I am not pretending for a moment that this is, in substance, an Amendment to which we take exception. Now we have the Leader of the House with us perhaps we could have his judgment on the matter. It has been put to us that the Government deliberately kept back from the Marshalled List Amendments which they have always intended to make, and because they thought that the Committee stage Marshalled List was rather overcrowded they decided that they would keep the Amendments for the Report stage. Surely this is not the normal way in which one conducts legislation. The Opposition are entitled to know at the Committee stage that the Government are proposing to put down Amendments. Although we are not entirely deprived of our rights because of the procedure on

601
Third Reading, it might have been that although the Government supposed that this was not contentious we might have wished to probe further on some matter. I do not think we ought to let this pass without question.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I think—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I speak further to that point? I have an extra point to which I hope the noble Earl will reply, and as he may not speak too often at this stage, even though he is the Leader of the House, I hope he will allow me to make it. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave us a good, courteous explanation of why these Amendments were not put down at Committee stage, and the noble Baroness answered that point; and I think that is right. What the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn did not tell us is why they were not put down at Committee stage in the other place, because there has not been any particular change in Government thinking on this matter. I submit that the only possible answer to this is the very true answer that an Irish plumber gave to my father when he complained that water was leaking into the dining room from pipes which the plumber had installed. When asked by my father, in a furious rage, why this had happened, the plumber replied."Sheer incompetence, yer Honour; sheer incompetence." I think that is the only answer the Government can give.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me a point, not on the question of competence or incompetence but relating to procedures in this House. I heard only the tail end of the discussion, but these particular Amendments have been down for something like a week, which is a not unreasonable period. They are on the Schedules to the Bill and they are completely uncontentious. I see nothing in that which is contrary to the procedure of your Lordships' House. I do not wish to be contentious at this late stage, but there have been periods during our discussions on this Bill where I have noticed procedures which were not in conformity with the traditions of your Lordships' House.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 98K.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 13, at end insert—

(" The Companies Act 1967 (1967 c. 81)

In section 60(1), in paragraph (c) the words"or to trade unions"shall be omitted, and after paragraph (d) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:
" (e) an organisation which is either a trade union or an employers' association within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 or an organisation for the time being entered in the provisional register maintained under section 78 of that Act, where the insurance business carried on by the organisation is limited to the provision for its members of provident benefits or strike benefits ".")

Schedule 9 [Enactments Repealed]:
8.57 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND LORD DIAMOND moved Amendment No. 98D:
Page 167, leave out lines 25 and 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was put down at an earlier stage, when it tied up with an earlier Amendment which we moved and discussed, and we were hoping that the Government would welcome this Amendment. This deals with the Trade Union Act 1871 and with the related matter of tax treatment of provident funds. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything further to say on that issue at this point of time. There was a very acceptable undertaking by the Government to give the matter full consideration. I am hopeful that some accommodation will be reached between now and Third Reading. If that were the case, would the position be that the Government would seek to make such adjustments in this Schedule as were necessary? If so, I do not think I need delay the House any further. But I do not want the Government unwittingly to allow a door to close against themselves at this stage if we have an opportunity now of keeping it open in case somebody wants to pass through it at a later stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has moved this Amendment

603
with reference to one particular problem, but he will recognise that if it becomes possible to deal with that problem it will not necessarily be the case that it will be dealt with in this way. He will be equally well aware that it is not our policy that the Act of 1871 should remain on the Statute Book. It is our view that no part of the 1871 Act will still be relevant after this Bill takes effect. The noble Lord has made reference to the income tax aspect of this matter. That is a subject which we are considering, but I have nothing more to say about it this evening. I should like to make the position about the 1871 Act clear this Bill is the first comprehensive legislation in industrial relations since 1871—certainly in this century. The 1871 Act gave rise to a number of Acts; that was the parent Act. It is necessary to replace outdated and piecemeal legislation which has built up and which is no longer appropriate to modern conditions.
I must explain why we are leaving this out. It is because the Act of 1871 had two objects in particular: first, to relieve trade unions from certain criminal and civil liabilities arising from the application of the doctrine of restraint of trade. Clause 136 of the Bill ensures that all organisations of workers and employers will continue to enjoy this protection. The 1871 Act also established a system of registration for trade unions and this is completely replaced by the provisions in Part IV of the Bill. Its retention would create confusion because two systems of registration would be operating side by side, each imposing rather different requirements on similar organisations which are nevertheless defined in different terms. Moreover, these organisations could continue to enjoy the various existing benefits of registration, including in particular relief from taxation of their provident expenditure. We have already debated this subject and, as I said, we are considering it further.
Trade unions which continue to be registered under the new provisions in the Bill will continue to enjoy these tax advantages. Those unions which, for their own purposes, do not want to continue as registered organisations can still,
604
despite what the noble Lord said the other day, obtain broadly similar tax treatment of their provident funds if they are prepared to separate these from their other funds. The Government cannot accept that the registration provisions of the 1871 Act should be continued for this purpose alone. The 1871 Act deals at some length with the function and status of trade union trustees. Part IV of the Bill obviates the need for unions to rely on trustees to hold their property, since it provides for them to be given corporate status upon registration. Registered organisations will not, of course, be precluded from continuing to make use of trustees if they so wish, but the specific provisions of the 1871 Act which relate to them will no longer be necessary.
Other provisions of the 1871 Act which are replaced by various parts of the Bill are Section 5 concerning registration under the Companies Act and the Acts relating to friendly societies, and Sections 19 to 23 which deal with legal proceedings under the Act. This leaves Section 4, which provided that nothing in the 1871 Act would enable any court to entertain any legal proceeding instituted with the object of directly enforcing or recovering damages for the breach of certain agreements between, for the most part, members of a trade union. The intention of those provisions was that the internal and domestic agreements of trade unions should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts. For our part, we believe, as did the majority of the Donovan Commission—it is in paragraph 815 of their Report—that there is now no compelling reason why a contract entered into by organisations of workers and employers should be placed on a different footing from other contracts as regards enforceability. All this is overtaken by the present Bill, and we therefore do not intend that this section of the 1871 Act should be incorporated in the provisions of the Bill.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the observations of the noble Lord indicate how this Bill in some ways goes back prior to the 1871 position, because now it will be possible for organisations of workers to be prosecuted and damages and compensation awarded in the way, indicated, which has not been the

605
position since the 1871 Act. This is a matter which I should like to place on record in these closing stages.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, for two particular reasons. First I want to thank him for repeating that the tax matter is still under consideration. As he has said that in the context of an Amendment to deal with this particular point he would not wish, at a later stage, to say that if we had only kept this door open we could have dealt with the matter in a certain way. It follows from what he has said that whatever decision is come to in regard to the tax matter there will have to be an appropriate adjustment to the Schedule during the Third Reading. The other thing I am grateful to him for saying is the matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Popplewell. I am grateful to him for pointing out that it is 100 years of liberties and freedoms which are being withdrawn by this Bill. We ought to get that very firmly on the record. If we have had to wait 100 years for this Bill, I only hope that we shall have to wait for at least another 100 years for another Bill like it. My only consolation lies in the fact that I trust and devoutly believe that if there is such another Bill in 100 years' time I shall not be called upon to speak for the Opposition on it. With your Lordships' permission, I seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 98B:
Page 167, line 33, at end insert—

(" 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90.

The Employers and Workmen Act 1875.

In section 3, the words from"(3) Where the court"onwards

In Section 7, the words from"The court may, if the person so summoned"onwards, Section 8.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to repeal those provisions of the 1875 Act which give discretionary power to order performance of a contract by manual workers (including apprentices), which are in conflict with the mandatory prohibition
606
in Clause 128 of the Bill against a court order for specific performance. The related Amendment to Clause 128 clarifies this position.
I think I should say a word or two about this Amendment because of the interest of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in it. At the Committee stage we agreed that the powers under the 1875 Act for a court to order performance of a contract are to some extent in conflict with the terms of Clause 128 of the Bill and we have already put that right. Moreover, in considering the Act as a whole we are bound, as I mentioned during Committee, by the longstanding and well-established convention that there should not be put into a repeals Schedule anything that is not consequential upon the terms of the Bill. There are provisions in the Act which have no relationship to the Bill before us. I am referring to the following Amendment which would leave out the whole clause. Perhaps we may discuss that at the same time. When this clause was raised previously I referred to Section 11 of the Act which prohibits in certain circumstances the setting up of deductions against wages due to women and young persons covered by the Factories Acts and represents an attempt to remedy an abuse of the Truck Acts, which as your Lordships know are still in force. Again, although Clause 112 of the Bill provides for the transfer to industrial tribunals by statutory order of the power to hear cases for recovery of damages for breach of contract, I should make it clear that until such transfer takes effect these cases will continue to be heard in the ordinary courts.
As the noble and learned Lords, Lord Gardiner and Lord Donovan, pointed out at Committee stage, the provisions of the Act have been rarely invoked for a number of years. However, the Donovan Commission, though noting that employers did not use the jurisdiction set up by the Act to sue strikers, adopted a cautious approach to the question of repeal. They recommended that most of the provisions of the Act might be repealed when all jurisdiction arising from the contract of employment was concentrated in industrial tribunals. We do not necessarily dissent from that view, but it clearly does not justify a total repeal of the Act at this point in time.
We have therefore concluded that in Schedule 9 we should provide for the repeal of Section 3(3), the final sentence of Section 7, and Section 8 of the 1875 Act, dealing with the power to order specific performance of a contract. We do not feel that we should take away the power of a magistrates' court under Section 7 of the Act to order a guarantor to pay damages for a breach by an apprentice of his contract of apprenticeship. This is quite distinct from the enforcement of the performance of a contract.
My Lords, in relation to the remainder of the Act, where sections have not already been repealed by other enactments, we consider that the repeal of these sections might appropriately be a matter for consideration by the Law Commission with a view to inclusion in a future Statute Law Revision measure. As I indicated, Section 11 is one such measure.
I would suggest, my Lords, that this Amendment, together with the related Amendment No. 90A to Clause 128, goes as far as is possible at the present time to meet the proposals put forward by noble Lords opposite, with which, as I indicated in the Committee stage, we really have sympathy, and we are grateful to noble Lords for having drawn the point to our attention. In the circumstances, I hope that noble Lords will agree with this Amendment and will not press their Amendment No. 90A to abolish the whole Act. I beg to move.
9.10 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I have already expressed my noble and learned friend's apologies to the House for not being able to be here. As your Lordships know, he has taken a particular interest in the subject of the Employers and Workmen Act 1875. To save time, may I mention the point of the succeeding Amendment, No. 98A, which appears in his and in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, reminded us, he moved Amendment No. 90A because, as he said, if he did not move it there would be a clash between the 1875 Act and Clause 128 of this Bill. That sounds an interesting and adequate reason. Therefore, he asked the House to add to the Bill the following words:
608
" Any power conferred on a court by the Employers and Workmen Act 1875—

(a) to accept security for the performance of a person's contract, or

(b) having accepted such security, to order performance of the contract accordingly, shall cease to be exercisable.

The Amendment that we now have before us, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, seeks to leave out certain words from that same ill-starred Act, the Employers and Workmen Act 1875. As my noble and learned friend pointed out (I have the Act beside me, and I may say that I have verified it), the words which the noble Lord now seeks to leave out from that Act are the very words, unless I am mistaken, which conferred the powers which the noble Lord, by his Amendment No. 98A, said were not to be exercisable. If that is right, may I put this question to the noble Lord: can he cite any precedent in any other Statute in which, when you read half way through the Statute you are told that the power to do X, Y, Z is not to be exercisable, and when you get to the end of the Statute you are told that the powers do not exist anyhow? I should be interested to know whether there is any Statute like that on the Statute Book. I have never come across it myself, and I should be very surprised if I did. If this is a Statute very much sui generis which possesses this wholly remarkable feature, perhaps we ought to place it on record and congratulate the Government on having conceived a rather exquisite new drafting system which will be the curiosity of future judges.
Fortunately, learned judges are admirable, and the judicial bench has not infrequently rescued Parliament from its own language, and I daresay this will be another occasion when they are called upon to do so. But it is a little hard to add to the burdens which they already have to carry. Having said that, I cannot raise any great objection in principle to the removal of these words. I think it is a pity that Amendment No. 98A was moved, as has already been said.
If I may say one word on the Amendment of my noble friend, I could put the argument in a nutshell. When your Lordships listened to his speech you may well have thought that the 1875 Act, after

609
all the changes made in it, really emerged as little more than a piece of mangled nonsense; and perhaps it would have been a good idea, tradition or not tradition, to use this Repeals Schedule to get rid of that Act once and for all. It has very little value: if it has some value in relation to the Truck Acts that part of it could be preserved perfectly well and the rest of the Act got rid of. I therefore do not resist the noble Lord's Amendment and in due course when the next Amendment is called I will ask leave to withdraw it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said about not moving his next Amendment. I, too, have the Act here and quite honestly I do not think that the rather knockabout remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, were really justified by the facts. I see exactly what is left out. The Act may have been eroded by time, but I do not think it could be said to be mangled. What was taken out was taken out because of, among other things, considerations concerning the change in the constitutional position of Ireland; so he really is not justified in saying that it is mangled.
On other points raised by the noble and learned Lord, the declaratory Amendment introduced in Clause 128 seems to me to be quite right; and once that declaratory Amendment was introduced it was essential to have in the Schedule an Amendment to omit the relevant passages from this particular Act. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, as a lawyer, would not disagree with the principle that you should not use the Schedule to an Act to abolish parts of an Act which have nothing to do with the Bill in question. This is really what he would have been asking us to do had he asked us to abolish the whole of the Act. I am glad that he is not going to ask us to do that, because I think it would have been almost improper.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99 which repeals the Act of 1883 which now applies only to trade unions and is rendered redundant by the new clause
610
which is to follow Clause 153. This is a consequential Amendment to Schedule 9 following the addition to the Bill. The Act to which I have referred is the Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act 1883.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 35, at end insert—

(" 46 & 47 Vict. c. 47.

The Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act Act 1883.

The whole Act.")

—(Lord Belstead.)
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99B, the object of which is to relieve the Registrar of Friendly Societies of any responsibilities for trade unions under the Friendly Societies Act 1896 and is a necessary consequence of the transfer of those responsibilities to the new Register of Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
Amendment moved—
Page 167, line 36, column 3, at end insert—

(" and the words"trade union and ".

In section 4(1), the words"Scotland and ", in both places where they occur, and the word"respectively"where it first occurs.")

—(Lord Belstead.)
9.20 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 99C:
Page 167, line 40, column 3, leave out (" Section 1 ") and insert—

(" In section 1, subsection (1), and in subsection (2) the words"the objects mentioned in section sixteen of the Trade Union Act Amendment Act 1876, namely ".")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is needed to avoid what I think your Lordships would regard as a serious gap

611
in the law which would have resulted had the whole of Section 1 of the Trade Union Act 1913 been repealed, as is at present proposed in this Schedule. Subsection (2) of Section 1 of the 1913 Act defines the term"statutory objects ", which occupies a key position in the present definition of a trade union. With the substitution of new definitions of"trade union"and"employers' association"in Clauses 61 and 62 of the Bill, the term"statutory objects"ceases to have any function in this context, and it would appear that both parts of Section 1 become redundant. However, that is not so. The concept of"statutory objects"is retained in that Part of the 1913 Act which is not to be repealed; namely, the sections dealing with restraints on the application of funds for certain political purposes.
Section 3(1) of the 1913 Act provides that union funds shall not be applied in furtherance of political objects unless the furtherance of those objects has been approved by a ballot of members and unless the union has rules which set up a separate political fund for the purpose. Section 3(3) of that Act says what are political objects for this purpose: they are familiar to some of your Lordships. The proviso in that section is, I think your Lordships will agree, vital to unions as a means of distinguishing between activities which, although political in nature, are essentially a part of the organisations' normal representative activities on behalf of members and not Party political activities.
There is one more point. Trade unions with political fund rules have tended to adopt the model rules published by the Registrar, which incorporate the 1913 Act's definition of"statutory objects ". Rather than have the Bill cause every union with such rules to revise them, this Amendment retains the present definition of"statutory objects"for the purposes of Section 3(3) of the 1913 Act, thus maintaining the existing position regarding what is or is not to be regarded as political expenditure to be met only out of the political fund.
With that explanation, I hope your Lordships may agree to this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 99D:
Page 167, line 44, at end insert—

(" 11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 39.

The Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act 1948.

In section 23(1), paragraph (d).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I will speak to Amendments 99D, 99E and 101 together. These are all consequential Amendments arising from the redefinition of the term"trade union"in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 99D and 99E are a direct consequence of Amendment No. 98J to Schedule 8, and No. 101 follows from No. 99K.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99E:
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 14, at end insert—

(" 6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 72.

The Insurance Companies Act 1958.

In section 1(5), the words"or to trade unions ".")

—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 99A is a consequential Amendment necessitated by the redefinition in Schedule 8 of the term"The Registrar"as used in the Trade Union (Amalgamations) Act 1964. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 29, column 3, at end insert(" In section 7(1)(c) the words ' or by any Assistant registrar '. Section 8.")—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Amendment No. 100 is consequential on Amendment No. 99. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 168, line 31, at end insert—

(" 1965 c. 32.

The Administration of Estates (Small Payments) Act 1965.

In Schedule 1, Part I, and in Schedule 3, the entries relating to the Provident Nominations and Small Intestacies Act 1883.")

—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 168, line 35, at end insert—

(" 1967 c. 81.

The Companies Act 1967.

In section 60(1)(c), the words"or to trade unions ".")

The noble Lord said. My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment, but before I move it may I, first of all, pay tribute to the Opposition for the care with which they have examined this Bill and for the good temper with which we have carried on our discussions. Secondly, I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the strong support we have had from our own side. It would be appropriate for me to say here that many have doubted whether it was possible to take a Bill of this character through a House of this character; and the way in which Members have taken an interest in this Bill, albeit silent, very often—they have taken a real interest in this Bill—and have attended in the numbers they have throughout this period, is a very great tribute to the voluntary spirit. I ought also to say that we are much indebted to those who have looked after us while we were doing so, as regards both our bodily needs and the other services. We are extremely grateful to them all. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am quite sure that all my noble friends on this side of the House would wish me to join in the appreciation of the noble Lord for the facilities which have been made available to us. I repeat what was said on an earlier occasion: we are grateful for the help we have had all round, and we envy again the noble Lord his riches in strong, silent support.

CITIZENS ADVICE BUREAUX: POLICY AND GRANT AID
9.27 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will carry out a review of the future of the Citizens Advice Bureaux and of the grant aid made to them, including the sources from which it is derived. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry to detain the House but I really had no option. As the House may have noted, I have amended the
614
wording of my Motion in view of what was said yesterday by Lord Sandford. I have, of course, discussed this with him. In fact, what now appears on the Order Paper is what I actually intended, at the end of the debate, asking the Minister who was to reply to recommend to the Government as a first step towards helping in this most unhappy affair. And I shall come back to it later.
Might I just mention that Lord Amulree has expressed much regret at being unable to speak tonight and to say at the same time how glad I am that Lord Wells-Pestell is to take part? I think his experience, his pioneering activities and expertise in the whole field of social services are known to everyone associated with this subject.
My Lords, I am raising this matter for three reasons: one, I think injustice has been done; two, I think that an essential development of the Citizens Advice Bureaux has been prevented; three, I think that the value and service to the community from the Citizens Advice Bureaux must suffer as a result. And this last point is where I differ from what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said yesterday, at col. 350 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. This is much more than a matter of personality but it is one fundamentally of structure. For the benefit of anyone who knows little of the Citizens Advice Bureaux, and to quote the Molony Report, at paragraph 489, the Citizens Advice Bureaux
" originated during the last war to help the public with information and advice in disturbed conditions of life. The Local Government Act of 1948 (Sections 134 and 136), authorised local authorities to give financial or other support to the Bureaux in the guise of information or advice centres. The constitutions of the Bureaux vary from place to place. The majority are controlled by independent committees in which voluntary organisations play the prominent part. The Bureaux staff is largely voluntary. Each bureau is independent but the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Committee guides the conduct of the work and generally supervises the service. Their value to the citizen became particularly well known in connection with problems associated with the Rent Acts."
The Report goes on to say in paragraph 490:
" Since there are no obvious limits to their fields of interest, Bureaux have inevitably attracted dissatisfied and perplexed consumers. Over recent years an increase has been observed in the number of people seeking advice over unsatisfactory goods and services, hire-purchase problems and the means of getting redress."
Under the heading"High Value of Work"in paragraph 492, the Molony Committee state:
" We regard the work described as most beneficial. The fact that many of the complaints handled lack substance does not detract from its overall value. It is important that those consumers who are worried and perplexed about their difficulties should be able to unburden themselves to a sympathetic ear and receive an independent and realistic appraisal of the position. For those with more genuine grievance it is a valuable assistance to have their case presented for them with a forceful clarity which they could not personally command."
I have quoted these comments, my Lords, because, although they were printed in 1962, they say what I believe to be true to-day. The Citizens' Advice Bureaux render a service which is invaluable to people in time of stress and worry. I think they render an indispensable service to the social life and needs of to-day.
Before the last war I had the pleasure of working with the National Council of Social Service. Indeed, it was through their help that I was able to go and work in a Quaker settlement in the Rhondda Valley in the 1930s. After that we were able to co-operate in London—in the East End. So I have only pleasant memories of the N.C.S.S. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, told us yesterday of his own past connection with them, too. During my ten years in another place obviously I had many contacts with the C.A.B. both locally and nationally. Since 1962 I have worked closely with them because of our mutual interest in consumer work: and of course the carrying out of the responsibilities accepted by them as a result of the Malony Report recommendations being accepted by the Government.
For the past two, three or four years it has become more and more obvious to me that if the C.A.B. were to develop their potential some sort of arrangement with the N.C.S.S. would have to be worked out. I believe that such an arrangement would have to give the C.A.B. whole or partial independence. It is no secret to interested people that discussions proceeded over a very long period on this problem. I think equally that those interested people, anxious for the well-being of the work being done, realised that the less said in public the
616
better. Because of this feeling, which I am sure was the right one, I said nothing tangible in the House until 1969. But on November 26, 1969 (at col. 1266), I made what I hoped was a moderate comment:
" I believe that the Citizens' Advice Bureaux should continue as at present, but only if given adequate finance and independence. This must be forthcoming in the near, the very near, future. If not, then the work will not be successful because of lack of adequate implementation. Responsibility here lies primarily with the National Council of Social Services and with the Government. I hope the Minister will comment for the Government, and I understand that the whole position is now under review between the National Council of Social Service and the National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council."
I hope that the foregoing may be regarded as part 1, or as the explanatory and introductory section, of what I want to say to-night.
What opens my part 2 came as a complete surprise to me, anyway. In the Guardian of June 30, I saw a headline:
" C.A.B. Council to Meet on Dismissal."
The article went on to say:
" The national council of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux is to hold an emergency meeting on Tuesday to decide what action to take over the dismissal of Miss Joan Pridham, its secretary for the past seven years, by its parent body, the National Council for Social Services.
The dismissal has already led the chairman of the CAB Council, Sir Harold Banwell, to announce his resignation. Further powerful support for the greater independence of the CAB is already being mustered."
Following this, I sent a letter to The Times, and I was appreciative of their publishing it on July 9. The Minister will obviously have a copy, and I do not propose to weary the House with it.
On July 13, The Times published a joint letter from the Chairman of the N.C.S.S. and the new Chairman of the National C.A.B. Council. I do not propose to weary the House with this, either; but the letter makes the perfectly relevant point that in a vote taken on June 8, the figures were 163 in favour and 132 against. The occasion was the national conference of the C.A.B., and the motion for independence was not voted on, as an amendment for trying to work out an agreement based on a document agreed between the chairmen of the two organisations was accepted by the vote which I have quoted. I think there was

617
considerable confusion among those present at the conference about exactly what they were voting on, but the majority vote went for the amendment. Although I feel strongly, and am anxious about the work, I have no desire to stoke up the flames. But I want to see justice done, and I think this is not the case.
Your Lordships have probably seen in the Press various statements as to whether the chairman of the National C.A.B. Council was consulted or not, and as to whether the Council itself was consulted or not. Your Lordships have probably also seen statements to the effect that certain people have been dismissed, while others have resigned. The letter from the two chairmen states that nobody has been dismissed—apart from the secretary. My Lords, I have here a letter, which I have obtained permission to read out, from all the people concerned. I think that it should be on the record of this unhappy affair. The notepaper is headed"The National Citizens' Advice Bureaux Council ". It was, of course, the notepaper then current, so the chairman is given as Sir Harold Banwell and the secretary as Miss Joan Pridham. The date is June 29. 1971. The letter is addressed to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, numbering some 500. It is sent and signed by two members of the Council (Mrs. Eileen M. Crosby and Mrs. Margaret Edmondson) and is as follows:
" Dear Organiser,
" You will probably have read in The Times and Guardian today that Miss Pridham's appointment as Secretary of the National CAB Council has been terminated by the NCSS honorary officers acting on the in-instructions of the NCSS Executive Committee which met on 10th June. The NCSS honorary officers wish her to take paid leave of absence immediately and until the end of her appointment. She will therefore be leaving on Friday next. 2nd July. We understand she is to be offered a small pension.
" The decision to terminate her appointment was taken without consulting the National CAB Council and against the advice of the Chairman and ourselves who were called to a special meeting with the NCSS honorary officers yesterday. The Chairman and we very much regret the action taken.
" The reason for the termination of Miss Pridham's employment is that she ` advocated a policy in complete contradiction to that agreed by the National Standing Conference of CABx'. You will all know that up to the date of the conference she did advocate independent management for the CAB Service, believing with the great majority of CAB
618
Council members that the best opportunity for development lay in the government of the Service by the CABx themselves. Since the conference decision was that the CAB Service should continue to be an integral part of the NCSS the job of the headquarters and field staff was clearly to work towards the implementation of that decision; and this they intended to do under Miss Pridham's leadership.
" Mrs. Prudence King, the Assistant Secretary to the Council, Miss Ingrid Marx, who prepares the monthly Information Circular, and Miss Pridham's personal assistant, Miss Sheila Brent, have handed in their resignations today.
" There will be a meeting of the CAB Council on Tuesday next which it is hoped your regional representatives will be able to attend.
Yours sincerely,
(signed) EILEEN M. CROSBY
MARGARET EDMONDSON."
My Lords, I think the letter speaks for itself.
I have various suggestions on all this, but at the moment I intend to confine myself to one of which I have given notice to the Minister. I am confining myself to this one point because I think it is the most hopeful course of action at this stage. Other things will have to work themselves out as talks continue in an effort to find out whether the amendment carried on June 8 is likely to succeed. Perhaps I might just say, in passing, that I have of course seen the written reply to a Question in another place on July 2 and that my suggestion, or request, is not the one made there.
I am sure that this Government will be aware that their predecessors at the Board of Trade recommended a review of the grant aid made to Citizens' Advice Bureaux and also the sources from which this came. I think this was in March, 1970. The House probably knows that these sources are: the Department of Trade and Industry, which makes a grant direct to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; the Department of the Environment, which makes a grant to the National Council of Social Service which then allocates that money, part of which goes to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux the voluntary funds of the National Council of Social Service, some of which are raised on behalf of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux; and the Bureaux themselves.
I want to help, and I do the Government the credit of believing that they

619
want to help, too. One of the most helpful results of this unhappy unfair and of this short debate would be that this review should now take place with the Departments concerned. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said yesterday:
' The service provided by the Citizens ' Advice Bureaux is, of course, of very great and direct concern when it comes to allocating grant…",—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/7/71; c. 349–50.]
and he then went on to make the statement with which I disagreed, as I mentioned earlier in this debate. The review for which I am asking the Minister's support would concern the future of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and of the grant aid made to them, including the sources from which it is derived. I believe, and in this I am supported by many others, that considerable advantage would accrue if this grant aid were to come from one source and not from several. Perhaps the Government grant at least could come from one source and be made direct to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. Then we should have a starting point for a possible reconstruction. I hope the Minister will be able to say that such a review will now take place.
Finally, may I state quite categorically that I have raised this matter purely on my own initiative. Nobody else is implicated in any way whatsoever. My Lords, I do not like injustice.
9.45 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has put the position so adequately and clearly that I think there is little for me to say. In fact, I doubt whether there are any"t's"for me to cross or any"i's"for me to dot. Like my noble friend, I am gravely concerned at what is taking place at the present moment between the National Council of Social Service and the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, because those of us who have worked for many years in the field of voluntary social service know from personal experience that difficulties within can have very serious repercussions on the outside; and if there is one thing which has made a tremendous contribution to our society in recent years, it has been the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux. I think I would go so far as
620
to say that when the Citizens' Advice Bureaux came into being just before the war and became, if I may be permitted to say so, extremely efficient after the war, they filled a gap in our vast and comprehensive network of social services in this country; and it is with this in mind that I say that I fear the argument which is going on between these two organisations may have serious repercussions on the work of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux and on the value of their contribution to the community.
I think we sometimes see the Citizens' Advice Bureaux as an organisation staffed by people who are merely telling people what to do. In point of fact, their work goes much deeper than that. They spend a good deal of time with people, and often successfully resolve and bring to a successful conclusion the inquiries they undertake. But it is not only the individual help that they are able to give to people going there for advice: they have become a means by which Government Departments are able to explain the various policies which they are pursuing and have set in motion for the benefit of the people, and I believe that this is one of the most important contributions which the Citizens' Advice Bureaux make at the present moment and have made for some considerable time.
I should have thought the time had come when this organisation should have an opportunity to stand on its own feet, because I believe that the extent of its contribution and its value could be considerably increased if it was completely independent, able to raise what money it needed, able to make its own application to one Government Department for money to enable it to carry on, and, what I think is even much more important, if it could be entirely responsible for the formation of its own policy and the carrying out of that policy. As I said a moment or two ago, the argument which is going on within these two organisations will, I think, militate against that happening. And, like my noble friend, who as I have said has put the position so adequately and so clearly that it leaves little more for me to say, I ask the Government—because the Government provide, through the Exchequer, a very substantial grant to the National

621
Council of Social Service, and, in so doing, to the Citizens' Advice Bureaux—to undertake some kind of inquiry whereby there can be one grant and also, through that inquiry, perhaps give some advice as to the desirability of making the Citizens' Advice Bureaux an independent organisation capable of running their own affairs.
9.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, earlier this week I thought it right to declare my own close interest in the National Council of Social Service. Now perhaps I ought to do the reverse, and say that although my daughter's name is Margaret Edmondson she is not the Margaret Edmondson referred to in the letter read by the noble Baroness.
The genuine and personal concern of the noble Baroness in speaking on this question is evidence in itself of the high esteem in which the National Council of Social Service and the Citizens Advice Bureaux are both held. Her Majesty's Government join in acknowledging the great value of the work done by the Citizens Advice Bureaux in explaining the rights and the benefits made available to citizens by the complex legislation of our present society, and in giving friendly and impartial independent advice in cases of perplexity and difficulty. The Government's Manifesto, in considering the means for improving the quality of life, recognised the important contribution in social welfare and to the environment that voluntary and volunteer organisations are already making; and the National Council of Social Service has a valuable part to play, and does play a valuable part, in co-ordinating the efforts and policies across the whole voluntary movement.
The dispute, such as it has been, was about the relationship between the Citizens Advice Bureaux Council and the National Council of Social Service. Her Majesty's Government have taken the view that the way in which these two bodies arrange their affairs is a matter entirely for those bodies, and have therefore not sought to intervene. The changes that have taken place in the administration of the Citizens Advice Bureaux movement are, of course, internal matters in which Her Majesty's Government have no function whatever.
622
The position now is that the dispute appears to be well on the way to being resolved, and it is our earnest hope that the two Councils will speedily settle any remaining differences there may be between them, and that the valuable service they both provide to the community will continue and develop. For these reasons, therefore, there is no cause for the Government to take any initiative in the remaining tidying up operations, although perhaps I do not need to say that we should be ready to give help if the two Councils ask for it. Equally, but unlike the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Her Majesty's Government see no reason in the present situation to undertake any special review of the future of the Citizens Advice Bureaux services or of its finance. That is not to say that the Departments concerned do not and will not of course review the services provided by the Citizens Advice Bureaux whenever the appropriate levels of grant next come to be determined.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord suggest that it would be helpful to the Citizens Advice Bureaux if one single Government grant were paid direct to them. This is certainly something which might be considered if it were to be put forward formally. I see that there might be some administrative difficulties, but, more important, there might be some disadvantages to the Citizens Advice Bureaux in such an arrangement. While it would give the Bureaux greater financial independence in relation to other voluntary bodies, it would do so at a price of much greater direct dependence on central Government. That, my Lords, could be put in simpler and more personal terms as:
" Hold on to nurse,
" For fear of finding something worse ".

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
ALDRIDGE-BROWNHILLS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.

HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
  CIVIL SERVICE PRODUCTION ESTABLISHMENTS
  CIVIL SERVICE PRODUCTION ESTABLISHMENTS