Sitting of 27 July 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ETON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
    HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
    ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    Lords Amendments to be considered upon Thursday next.

    STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to, two with Amendments.
    BRITISH RAILWAYS (NO. 2) BILL
    EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL
    HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
    MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL
    TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
    BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [Lords] [Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]
    CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
    Bills read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.
    EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    BOURNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
    MANCHESTER CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
    SCUNTHORPE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
    Bills, as amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Meacherasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give as much information as is available to him relating to changes in the distribution of income in Great Britain and in each of the European Economic Community countries over the period 1957–70.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Maurice Macmillan): Changes in the distribution of personal income in the United Kingdom are shown in Table 57 of "Inland Revenue Statistics 1971", which gives figures for 1959–60 and 1968–69, together with a number of intervening years. I regret, however, I have no comparable information for any of the countries of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Meacher: I find that a disappointing answer. Will not the Minister acknowledge that the most likely effect of our entry into a wider capitalist bloc free of tariff barriers is a rise in the profits share of the G.N.P. at the expense of the wages share, that this is all the more likely to happen in view of the relatively higher proportion of remuneration in British G.N.P. at present than in the Common Market, and that it is likely to be the lowest paid workers in the declining industries who will suffer most in the absence of remedial measures

    185
    of the kind which the Government seem either unwilling to take or incapable of taking?
    Mr. Macmillan: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman in anything he has said. Such evidence as there is shows that since the Common Market has been in existence the share of wages and salaries has risen considerably. From 1960 to 1969 the figure altered from 57·4 per cent. to 62·7 per cent. of the G.N.P.
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will ensure that, whether Great Britain enters the European Economic Community or not, it will be possible to remit capital for investment in Australia and New Zealand.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): The obligations of the United Kingdom after entry into the E.E.C. relate to capital movements between the United Kingdom and other member States of the Community and not to investment in third countries.
    Mr. Tilney: Despite the recent experience of unfortunate British investors in some almost non-existent Australian mines, does my right hon. Friend agree that investment by British companies in subsidiaries or in partnership with local capital has been beneficial both to Australia and New Zealand and to this country, and will he see that it continues?
    Mr. Barber: I touched on this matter in the debate on the Budget and explained why we considered it necessary to retain the voluntary programme for the time being. The important thing in relation to the Question is that no undertaking has been given to the E.E.C. on this matter of the voluntary programme.
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of raising annually the income tax age relief, age exemption and small income relief by sufficient to compensate those living on small fixed incomes for the additional cost of living resulting from Great Britain joining the Common Market as set out in paragraph 43 of Command Paper No. 4715.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): It is not possible to provide such an estimate, but I would refer my hon. Friend to Paragraph 90 of Cmnd. 4715.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to make such an undertaking, as it would go a long way to allay the fears of people on small fixed incomes about entry into the Common Market, which is so desirable?
    Mr. Higgins: I am afraid that I could not do that. My hon. Friend will, no doubt, have noticed that one consequence of the new system of personal taxation is that small income relief and age relief will be unnecessary as they will be abolished from 1973 onwards. The income tax limit for age exemption is being increased both this year and next.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that part of the Government's pledges regarding entry to the Common Market is that people in receipt of social service benefits will be protected? Why does he make this unfair discrimination? There are masses of people on small fixed incomes with whom it is difficult to deal, and those who are in favour of going into the Common Market, as I am, are as entitled to have their ideas put into operation and assurances given to them as are others. It is a question not only of wanting to convert the anti-Marketeers, but of wanting to reassure the pro-Marketeers.
    Mr. Higgins: Naturally, I appreciate the point which my hon. Friend has made. It was for that reason that I referred my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) to paragraph 90 of the Cmnd. Paper.

    Economic Assessment
    Mr. Douglasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has completed his mid-year economic assessment; and if he will make a statement on the economic correctives he has in mind.
    Mr. Strangasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has completed his review of the state of the economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: I would refer hon. Members to the statement I made on 19th July.
    Mr. Douglas: Does not the Chancellor agree that his statement holds out little prospect of any reduction of unemployment in the United Kingdom and no possibility of reduction in the excessively high unemployment levels we are experiencing in Scotland?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir, I disagree entirely, for the reasons which I gave last Tuesday.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: My right hon. Friend told us in his Budget Statement that he was not in favour of attempting to fine tune the economy. Will he, therefore, confirm that if it should transpire that the repercussions of the measures taken last week are reflected more slowly than expected in the economy, he would not be inclined to add to the measures that he applied last week in advance of seeing them achieve their purpose?
    Mr. Barber: As I have said on many occasions, the principle I have applied throughout is that I believe the only sensible way for any Chancellor is to take whatever action is required when it is required.
    Mr. Joel Barnett: Does not the Chancellor admit that his mini-Budget represents a complete reversal of his previous policy? If not, will he confirm that he does not intend to go for 4 to 4½ per cent. growth for more than a year and that at the end of that time he intends to apply the brakes again and go back to 3 per cent.?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. I believe that the action which I took and which I announced last week is very sensible in the circumstances.
    Mr. Lane: Is it not a fact that, including the latest measures, the Government have now reduced taxation by well over £1,000 million in just over a year, and that this is greatly welcomed by the country as a refreshing change from the policy of their predecessors?
    Mr. Barber: Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right.

    Money Supply
    Mr. Dixonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the increase in the money supply in the third quarter of 1971.
    Mr. Higgins: I would again refer my hon. Friend to the answer my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave on 18th May to my hon. Friend the Member for The High Peak (Mr. Le Marchant).—[Vol. 817, c. 1064–5.]
    Mr. Dixon: Will my hon. Friend say whether the Government's policy on money supply is now passive or neutral and, if it is neutral, what rate of inflation and what rate of real expansion the increase in the money supply is intended to accommodate?
    Mr. Higgins: The objective of the money policy is to find a middle course between excessive monetary tightness, which would impede the growth of industrial output which we want, and excessive monetary ease, which would give an additional boost to demand above what is appropriate.

    Investment Incentives
    Mr. Duffyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will undertake an urgent review of investment incentives, in view of the latest figures of industrial production.
    Mr. Higgins: I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on Monday, 19th July.
    Mr. Duffy: But is not the hon. Gentleman aware that that statement represents the second major change in investment incentives in nine months, and does not this smack of tinkering? How does the hon. Gentleman expect the business community, including nationalised industry, to undertake long-term planning on such shifting bases? Finally, how does he expect the nationalised industries, especially the steel industry, in view of the announced policy of price restraint, to secure its long-term investment policy without being thrown eventually on to State funding?
    Mr. Higgins: The steel industry is, of course, the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. On the more general point which the hon. Gentleman makes in the first part of his supplementary question, it is our view that the additional incentives which have been announced recently are complementary to those which were given earlier and do not, therefore, reflect

    189
    a discontinuity of policy which would have disadvantages of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

    World Bank (Consultations)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he last had consultations with representatives of the World Bank; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Barber: I met Mr. McNamara, the President, when he came to London in April, and we discussed some of the problems facing the World Bank.
    Mr. Dalyell: Does not the job of being President of the World Bank involve the exercise of moral authority without vindictiveness in as adult a manner as possible? In the light of the Pentagon papers, will the British Government, with other countries, raise the question whether Mr. McNamara is the best person to continue in this job?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. If the hon. Gentleman had had the advantage which I had of discussing the affairs of the World Bank with the developing countries, and if he had been present at the meeting of the World Bank which Mr. McNamara addressed, he would take a very different view. Mr. McNamara has a very distinguished and successful record as President of the World Bank. Loan commitments have approximately doubled since he took over and the resources of the International Development Association have trebled. Taking all these matters into account, I think that most developing countries would agree with me when I say that Mr. McNamara is proving to be an excellent President of the World Bank.

    Building Societies (Interest Rates)
    Mr. Walter Johnsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent communication he has received from the Building Societies Association on the subject of interest rates; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higgins: None, Sir.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Minister aware that there is growing public indignation about the building societies still charging 8½ per cent. interest to mortgage borrowers when Bank Rate has been reduced to 6 per cent? In addition, the
    190
    building societies have benefited from a 50 per cent. reduction in S.E.T. and a reduction in corporation tax and income tax. When will the general public get some benefit from this reduction, and will the Chancellor make immediate representations to the building societies' organisation to get the interest rates down?
    Mr. Higgins: As was made clear in my exchange with the hon. Gentleman at a recent Question Time, building society mortgage rates are essentially a matter for the societies concerned and not for the Government.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Does my hon. Friend remember that in our recent exchange on this matter, when I asked him whether he would consider referring this ring relating to interest rates to the Monopolies Commission, he said he was considering the matter under the whole question of credit control? Has he anything further to say on that subject?
    Mr. Higgins: With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I think I pointed out that this was a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. It is, of course, relevant to the question of control. The consultative document which was issued by the Bank of England makes reference to this and indicates that the authorities are aware of the overall question of monetary control and will bear in mind building society interest rates.

    £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
    Mr. Kaufmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as 100p on 18th June, 1970.
    Mr. Higgins: On the basis of the movement in the General Index of Retail Prices, the purchasing power of the £ fell by 9·3 per cent. between mid-June, 1970, and mid-June, 1971, the latest date for which information is available. In money terms this is equivalent to a fall from 100p to about 90½p.
    Mr. Kaufman: Is the Minister aware that, with Tory inflation at its present ruinous rate, the effect of the cut in purchase tax which the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced with such a vainglorious flourish last week will be completely wiped out three weeks from now?
    Mr. Higgins: I have pointed out to the hon. Gentleman on earlier occasions that the previous Administration must carry a great deal of responsibility for the situation. In regard to the reference to the cut in purchase tax, the hon. Gentleman is taking the rather narrow view of the measures we have recently announced. In addition to the cut in purchase tax, there were the cut in S.E.T., the limitation which my hon. Friend announced on nationalised industry prices and also the C.B.I. initiative, which was generally welcomed.
    Sir G. Nabarro: On the matter of purchase tax, would my hon. Friend bear in mind that the reduction from 36⅔ per cent. to 30 per cent. on motor cars, coupled with the freeing of all hire-purchase restrictions, has led to an enormous demand for motor cars? As this will cause manufacturers to be able to work their plant to the extent of 100 per cent. instead of 80 per cent., will my hon. Friend appeal to manufacturers to reduce the prices of all their motor cars on the home market?
    Mr. Higgins: I always listen very carefully to what my hon. Friend says——
    Sir G. Nabarro: I am sure you do.
    Mr. Higgins: —with regard both to purchase tax and to the car industry. I do not doubt that his views will also be noted by that industry.
    Mr. Taverne: Is it not a fact that inflation at the moment under the present Government is still accelerating, that the policies which were pursued until last week have totally failed and that the heavy increase in unemployment has been produced by a policy which is now discredited and largely abandoned?
    Mr. Higgins: I believe that our policies are effective and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out on Monday, we have now reached a further stage in the battle against inflation, which we are determined to win. I believe that we have the support of the country in the measures we have taken throughout.

    Social Security Benefits (Taxation)
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest
    192
    estimate of the tax revenue to be derived from the taxation of sickness, unemployment and supplementary benefits at present exempt from tax; and what adjustments in the standard rate of income tax will be required to offset the extension of taxation to such benefits.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: For sickness and unemployment benefit about £175 million, equivalent to about 1p off the standard rate. I cannot make an estimate for supplementary benefits but the yield is unlikely to be large.
    Mr. Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present P.A. Y. E. system is grossly unfair and that the way in which it operates causes great resentment among regular workers and old-age pensioners because all their pay ranks for taxation while others are exempt?
    Mr. Macmillan: I think that my hon. Friend's arguments make a case in principle for taxing short-term National Insurance benefits. There is great difficulty in finding a method of doing so which does not involve a disproportionately high administrative cost.

    Capital Gains Tax
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to abolish capital gains tax.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: No, Sir.
    Mr. King: Irrespective of whether or not the tax is equitable, is not the primary effect to inhibit anybody selling anything and to prevent investment switching? In the long term does not this have disastrous effects on investment and the economy?
    Mr. Macmillan: I remind my hon. Friend that we have never rejected capital gains tax in principle, but we have always thought it had a number of defects. This year's Finance Bill includes methods of removing three of them. My right hon. Friend has made clear that we are continuing to study capital gains tax. We shall take note of the point made by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend look at the cost of the collection/ yield ratio when considering capital gains tax on tangible moveable property? Will he also bear in mind the anomaly

    193
    that under this part of the tax system one can be taxed even if one gives an asset to the nation?
    Sir G. Nabarro: And even if one is burgled.
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend has made that point in different circumstances, but I will bear it in mind.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will my hon. Friend also consider that aspect of tax under which liability arises where there has been an increase in money value but no increase in the real value of the asset?
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes. I think that the point made by my right hon. Friend about taxation versus inflation should be carefully considered.

    Prices and Incomes Policy
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make a statement on his recent discussions with the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry on the subject of a prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Barber: The measures I announced on 19th July and the C.B.I. initiative on price restraint go a long way to meet the hopes which have been expressed by the T.U.C. I look forward to the further discussions which are to take place at the N.E.D.C. meeting on 4th August.
    Mr. Ashley: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that his conversion to a prices and incomes policy is belated though welcome? In view of the fact that the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. are now showing fresh interest in this matter, subject to certain conditions, does he not agree that a few hours' discussion at the N.E.D.C. is grossly inadequate? Would he consider establishing regular machinery so that the debate about a prices and incomes policy can be hammered out during the next few months?
    Mr. Barber: The Government's relations with both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. are good. If any meetings additional to those which take place under the auspices of N.E.D.C. are necessary, further meetings will be held.
    Mr. James Hamilton: What steps does the Chancellor intend to take on the new
    194
    White Paper in regard to rents, which for many local authority tenants will result in a rent increase of over 5 per cent? How does he expect the T.U.C. to stand still and not make wage applications when rent increases will exceed the 5 per cent. put forward by the C.B.I.?
    Mr. Barber: We have gone a long way on prices, and we have done what the T.U.C. has asked us to do and what the previous Government never did: we have taken action directly to affect prices. By reducing S.E.T. by half and by the cuts in purchase tax which I announced last week, there is no doubt that we have taken action. I hope that the T.U.C. will now consider what helpful action it can take to ensure that future pay settlements do not undermine the better outlook we now have on prices.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: In view of the new situation following the measures the Chancellor has taken in relation to his claims concerning S.E.T. and purchase tax, can he give us his estimate of the likely rate of price increase over the next 12 months?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. Furthermore, the right hon. Gentleman never did so, and I am sure he was very wise.

    Prices
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer having regard to continuing inflation, what new steps he now proposes to restrain price rises.
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend has always been a critic of purchase tax, and he will have noted that the reduction in the rates of purchase tax which I recently announced to the House has led to price cuts over a wide range of goods. In addition, I welcome the initiative of the C.B.I. and the response of the nationalised industries over price restraint.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I warmly embrace my right hon. Friend as a front-runner in purchase tax matters and congratulate him on his important arrangements with the nationalised industries to confine their price advances to 5 per cent. in the coming 12 months. What steps is he taking on deficit financing by nationalised industry industries where, for example, on the railways in the commuter belt in the South-East——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The other day the hon. Gentleman said to a Minister, "Hurry, hurry". I now say, "Hurry, hurry" to the hon. Gentleman.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Though I do not wish to hurry my right hon. Friend unduly, may I ask him to say what he proposes to do about deficit financing, as, for example, with the railways in the South-East, which are advancing by only 5 per cent. as against the 30 per cent. asked for?
    Mr. Barber: It is true that there will be additional demands on the National Loans Fund as a result of the policy I announced and to which the nationalised industries have agreed. My hon. Friend will bear in mind, however, that the nationalised industries will benefit from increased output and increased turnover as a result of the measures I announced and also from pay increases which will be at a lower rate than they otherwise would have been.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is not the situation that the Government are now backing price moderation by nationalised industries, whereas their policy will have no control over private industry? Is this not only unfair but also unwise?
    Mr. Barber: Whatever the hon. Gentleman my think, the country at large welcomes the C.B.I.'s initiative and also the response of the nationalised industries.
    Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the non-response of the American-dominated private sector in this country is due to fears of anti-trust action in America? If not, what is the reason for their very strange out-of-step behaviour?
    Mr. Barber: There was a very misleading report in certain newspapers. I saw it in one newspaper on Saturday. It may be that my hon. and learned Friend has been misled. I have been informed that the Ford Company has announced that it intends to sign. I have also been informed that Chrysler and Vauxhall have not decided yet. I am told that the report which appeared in some newspapers on Saturday that Chrysler and Vauxhall had decided not to sign is quite untrue. Generally, the information coming to the C.B.I. is that the responses to its initiative so far are very favourable.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)? Is not the purpose of these measures to take it out on the Government's own employees, for example, by giving senior scientists in five grades a zero pay award?
    Mr. Barber: No, Sir. There is a system of pay research, and we have abided by it.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the current position concerning the reduction of prices due to the cutting of the selective employment tax.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillian: A large number of price cuts have been made, and I am satisfied that the halving of S.E.T. has brought a real benefit to the consumer.
    Mr. Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his gross complacency is not appreciated by housewives who have received no tangible benefit at all from these cuts? Would not it have been infinitely preferable if, the Government having decided to give away this money, they had decided not to impose their niggardly policies with regard to school meals and school milk?
    Mr. Macmillan: I must first correct the hon. Gentleman's impression about giving away this money. He means not taking it in tax from those who have earned it. That is not the same thing. I am satisfied that my right hon. Friend's recent measures will have and are having the effect intended. Prices are beginning to come down, including food prices.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a substantial number of retail shops—the Co-op, Tesco, Sainsbury and the like—have been cutting prices as a result of the halving of S.E.T.? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will arrange to supply extra spectacles to hon. Gentlemen opposite who do not want to see the facts.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am happy to have confirmation from my hon. Friend of some information that I obtained from Woman's Own London Extra that even beef prices have come down.
    Mr. Marquand: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend's recent measures are totally different in kind from the cut in S.E.T.? If the S.E.T. cut has had such a dramatic effect on prices, why did not the Chancellor of the Exchequer cut the second half this time instead of reducing purchase tax?
    Mr. Macmillan: I am aware that the S.E.T. cut was different in kind. It is the tax which to a great extent comes into food prices. On the whole, purchase tax does not. I am equally confident that, taken together, my right hon. Friend's measures will provide the answer that he seeks.

    Harps (Taxation)
    Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will reclassify the harp from being a movable to an immovable instrument for tax purposes.
    Mr. Barber: While I cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request to classify the harp as he suggests, I did last week reduce the tax on harps from 36⅔ per cent. to 30 per cent., and I hope that this has been duly noted in high places.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: Are not organs exempt altogether from purchase tax? What possible reason can there be for distinguishing between organists and harpists, especially as the harp is a higher instrument in every sense of the word? Cannot we therefore have exemptions for harps and justice for members of the harp-playing classes?
    Mr. Barber: My hon. Friend is known as a very versatile man. If he were to extend his musical prowess to organs or, I am informed, to bells of the kind available for installation in a belfry, he would obtain these instruments free of purchase tax.

    Scottish Bank Notes
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to publicise the circulation of Scottish bank notes as acceptable currency; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Higgins: No, Sir. It is for the public to decide whether to accept Scottish bank notes; I understand they are
    198
    accepted by banks and many commercial concerns in England.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the recent case of a London hotelier refusing to accept Scottish bank notes from a Scots family who came into his hotel for dinner, and that the members of that family found themselves in a London police station on a Sunday evening trying to solve the difficulty? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that during the last four weeks a London taxi driver has refused to accept a Scottish bank note from me? Is not it about time that the Treasury took action and told these reluctant business people unequivocally that a Scots bank note is legal tender and is a perfectly acceptable means of exchange in London as elsewhere?
    Mr. Higgins: On previous occasions, the hon. Gentleman has suggested that Scottish bank notes should be made legal tender. As I understand it, that is essentially what he argues now. However, in view of the numbers of different Scottish notes, I do not think that it is a move which would be welcomed by the public.
    Mr. Douglas: Can the hon. Gentleman say what discussions the Treasury has had with the Scottish banks on the Government's consultative document on credit policy? Is he aware that there is a fear that, as a result of the document, there will be a reduction of the liquidity ratio of Scottish banks and a reduction of credit financing in Scotland?
    Mr. Higgins: The proposals to which the hon. Gentleman has referred seek to put all banks on an equal competitive footing. Within this framework, the problems arising from the banks' note issue will receive sympathetic consideration with the aim of finding a solution which will enable the banks to continue their note issue.
    Mr. Lipton: To avoid any misunderstanding, alarm and despondency, would not the simple solution be to abolish Scottish bank notes altogether? Are not Treasury notes in sufficient supply to meet all demands, even at the present deflated value of the £?
    Mr. Higgins: I get the impression that that is not a proposal which would commend itself in all parts of the House.

    Value-added Tax
    Mr. Millanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for increasing employment on value-added tax in Scotland.
    Mr. Higgins: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave him on 6th July.—[Vol. 820, c. 314–16.]
    Mr. Millan: Since V.A.T. is administratively a good deal more complicated than the taxes that it will replace, will not many thousands of additional jobs be created by its introduction? In those circumstances, is not it absurd and scandalous that the headquarters for this new tax should be located in Southend and not in a development area?
    Mr. Higgins: I do not accept that. We took into account all regional considerations. The hon. Gentleman will know from answers which my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has given him that a great many of the offices will be located throughout the country. But clearly one has also to take into consideration factors such as efficiency and the need to reduce the total numbers employed on the administration of the tax. The decision that we have taken with regard to the location at Southend for that part which necessarily has to be centralised is, we believe, the right one.
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for the use of computers in the administration of value-added tax.
    Mr. Higgins: An ICL System 4/72 computer will be used to issue tax return forms, account for tax payments, and provide information for management and control purposes.
    Mr. Huckfield: Surely the hon. Gentleman knows that this will not completely serve the administrative functions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has just referred. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that to administer V.A.T. without a thorough-going computerised system will involve the country in a weight of paper work from which we shall never emerge? Will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider the possibility that the system could be more fully computerised and
    200
    that the computer centre should be situated somewhere else than Southend?
    Mr. Higgins: I have indicated already the reasons for the choice of Southend. Clearly, this is a matter of hitting a balance on the degree of computerisation. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the amount of paper work involved. We believe that the solution is the optimum in terms of economic efficiency.

    Cost of Living Index
    Mr. Rostasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the reduction in the Cost of Living Index resulting from a 10 per cent. downward adjustment in purchase tax, fuel tax and excise duty.
    Mr. Higgins: A reduction of 10 per cent. in the duties on tobacco, alcoholic drink and hydrocarbon oil and in the purchase tax would now have an effect of about 1¼ per cent. on the Cost of Living Index.
    Mr. Rost: While adding my congratulations to those being expressed throughout the country for the Chancellor's reductions in purchase tax—the first since the previous Conservative Government in 1963—and the massive reductions in prices which are already in evidence in every High Street, may I ask whether my hon. Friend agrees that the next stage in reducing the burden of taxes imposed by the Labour Government ought to be on fuel tax, which would reduce distribution and transportation costs?
    Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his initial remarks. My right hon. Friend considered all the various possibilities, and I think that it was right to do so in the circumstances. In our view, however, the priorities which we have set ourselves at this stage are the right ones.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the percentage increase in public spending, and of the share of public expenditure in gross domestic product at factor cost in the current financial year.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Allowing for the additions to public expenditure in 1971–72 announced since the Budget estimates, the increase is 2·5 per cent. at constant prices, including the relative price effect, over the provisional outturn for 1970–71. This total is equivalent in size to about 51 per cent. of estimated gross domestic product at factor cost.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What additions will result from the public sector spending programmes announced before 19th July and from the measures announced on 19th July? Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether it remains Government policy to ensure that the proportion of the nation's resources preempted by the public sector shall be reduced?
    Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend will be aware that some of the announced increases in public expenditure have been for limited purposes and, to some extent, limited periods. The Government's purpose remains to reduce the proportion which is pre-empted by the public sector.

    Capital Expenditure (Free Depreciation)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the cost to the Exchequer of granting free depreciation of capital expenditure for the 18 months from October, 1971, to April, 1973.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The cost to the Exchequer of increasing the rate of the first-year allowance to 100 per cent. for expenditure during a period of 18 months from 1st October, 1971, on those classes of plant and machinery which, following the announcement of 19th July, will qualify for the 80 per cent. rate is broadly estimated to be some £15 million in 1972–73, £65 million in 1973–74 and £45 million in 1974–75.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having anticipated this Question in his Budget Statement last week. It is welcome to the House to be taken fully into the confidence of the Treasury before the Summer Recess. Could this be made an annual practice?
    Mr. Macmillan: As usual, I am grateful for the originality as well as the point of my hon. Friend's comments.

    2½p Coins
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will direct the Bank of England to request the joint stock banks to issue 2½p coins freely and not just on demand.
    Mr. Higgins: It is for the banks' customers to draw the coins that they require.
    Mr. Finsberg: I am grateful for that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that the joint stock banks are deliberately refusing to issue sixpences? They have no space in their tills. If one asks for sixpences, one grudgingly gets them from dirty paper bags. This is one reason why London Transport and other transport undertakings are having to increase their fares. Will my hon. Friend use his influence in this matter?
    Mr. Higgins: I note what my hon. Friend has said. If he will send me the details, I will certainly look into the matter.

  SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC POLICIES
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the Government's implementation of their social and economic policies; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Carter: Is the Prime Minister therefore saying that he is satisfied with the standard of living of old-age pensioners, which has consistently declined under this Government, and whose pension increase this autumn has already been wiped out by inflation?
  The Prime Minister: We have carried out our undertaking to review pensions, and pensioners will receive the largest increase ever in September.
  Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, as well as to the country as a whole, that the Government have already implemented a very large number of the social and economic policies which they pledged themselves to implement at the General Election?
  The Prime Minister: All those who study the matter will know that there are many formerly deprived groups in this country being helped today who were never helped before.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Beyond the charge and counter-charge, does the Prime Minister accept that because of the extraordinary increase in the cost of living, particularly in those areas where most of the expenditure of old-age pensioners goes, as anybody who has been in touch with groups of pensioners knows, there is now a need for the figures to be taken up and for a further review to be instituted at once?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not accept that.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if the public statement made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in a television broadcast on 9th July in relation to the proposed entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Home Secretary is on record as condeming the protectionist policies of the Six and Britain's possible entry into a Federal Europe? Why do the pro-Marketeers, such as the Prime Minister, proclaim the Home Secretary's stand and not condemn his apostasy and infidelity to principle? Why are they so quick to condemn those who challenge Britain's entry into Europe and, indeed, thus sell out Britain's interests?
  The Prime Minister: The Home Secretary, in winding up the debate last night, made an admirable speech which I hope the hon. Gentleman heard.
  Mr. Rost: So that the country may have as much factual and unbiased information as possible on the issues of the great debate will my right hon. Friend try to persuade the Leader of the Opposition to rewrite a shortened popular version of that section of his memoirs which deals with his enthusiastic attempt
  204
  to enter the Common Market, and, in order that the public may decide whether he was being politically honest in 1967 or is being politically honest now, will my right hon. Friend give permission for that popular version of the story to be released free through the Post Office?
  The Prime Minister: I doubt whether I could persaude the Leader of the Opposition to do that, unless I invited him round for a drink.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Home Secretary did not tell us last night: whether the heavy consequential legislation to be presented to the House, if we decide to go into the Common Market, will be amendable or not?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman had better await the legislation.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Accepting the Prime Minister's kind invitation, and in view of the Daily Mail account of what happens on these occasions, if only one glass is brought in will he undertake not to hog the whole lot himself?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon Gentleman has already accepted my hospitality on official occasions; so he knows the answer to that.
  Mr. Tugendhatasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with Heads of Government of the European Economic Community about the advantages to third countries, particularly to developing countries, of enlargement of the Community.
  The Prime Minister: In my discussions with Heads of Government of the Six I have found widespread recognition of the major contribution which an enlarged Community would be able to make to the relief of world poverty and the promotion of world trade and development.
  Mr. Tugendhat: Has not the Community so far a much better record than ourselves in providing aid to the Third World? Will my right hon. Friend hope that when we join the Community many hon. Members opposite who feel that this is a retrograde step as regards the Third World will see that our contribution will increase to the same level as that of the members of the Six?
  The Prime Minister: I think it is agreed amongst many in the House that the record of the Community in aid to the developing world is a good one. Associated status under Part IV of the Treaty of Rome corresponds roughly to our Commonwealth preferences in the developing world. As for official development aid in 1970, which is the latest year for which a figure is available——
  Mr. Russsell Kerr: Reading.
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants the figures he will get them. The total from the Community was 2,017 million dollars, which represents 0·42 per cent. of G.N.P., compared to our 0·37 per cent. of G.N.P. Its financial aid from official Government sources was a greater proportion of G.N.P. than was our own. The Community has also taken the lead on the generalised preference arrangements, which will now be extended to the Commonwealth countries in the developing world as well as to Hong Kong.
  Mr. Fernyhough: Is not the only reason why the member States of the Community have been able to devote a greater percentage of their G.N.P. to helping the under-developed countries that they have not spent in the post-war years, and are still not today spending, as much of their G.N.P. on defence as we are?
  The Prime Minister: The average expenditure of members of the Six in N.A.T.O. is not as high as ours, but I do not believe that this is the reason why they have been able to help the developing world more. Even if we were to take the view that their defence expenditure had an impact on the amount they give to the developing world, it would surely destroy the argument that they do not care for the developing world and that the Community is a selfish capitalist club.
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for official visits to development areas in the next three months, in order to explain officially the effect on them of British entry into the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister: I intend to make a number of speeches over the next few months in various parts of the country on Britain and the European Communi-
  206
  ties, which will cover the implications of entry for the United Kingdom as a whole, including the development areas.
  Mr. Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that he will not come to West Fife? Will he consider publishing a separate White Paper outlining the effects of development area policy and its relationship to our prospective membership of the E.E.C? Why did the Government see fit to produce three cursory paragraphs in the White Paper on development area policy when they knew full well that there are many people in Britain who are vitally interested in the matter?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think I can give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he has asked for, because I happen to like going to Fife and I admire a great deal what they have done there in the way of clearing dereliction, which ought to be emulated by many other areas. The reason why regional policy was dealt with in this way in the White Paper is that it has not been the subject matter of negotiations, for the simple reason that there is no Community regional policy.
  Mr. Molloy: Before the Prime Minister goes round the country or elsewhere making speeches, should he not make available much more information for hon. Members and for the country at large so that a proper judgment can be made? Is he aware that, because of the obvious contempt that he apparently has for the people as shown by the paucity of information in the White Paper, many people would not trust him or his Government to go into Shepherd's Bush Market let alone the Common Market?
  The Prime Minister: The White Paper gave the full details of our negotiations. It has now been discussed for four days in the House in a very full debate in which Ministers have answered the questions which have been raised. The White Paper has been circulated in a popular edition. I am glad that I have the hon. Gentleman's support for that. If there is any further information which he wants, we shall be glad to supply it.

  INFLATION
  Mr. Joel Harnettasked the Prime Minister how many letters he received in

  207
  his first 12 months of office on inflation; and what replies he has sent.
  The Prime Minister: About 1,600. The replies set out the various measures which the Government have taken over this period to combat the rapidly rising inflation we inherited.
  Mr. Burnett: When the Prime Minister replied did he speak, as he did last Saturday, about the great success of the Government and say that it was due to the culmination of a year's hard work? As there has been a net price inflation of 10·3 per cent., will the Prime Minister not work so hard next year? Will he confirm that his policy has not changed and that he has nothing else in mind than leaving prices to find their own level?
  The Prime Minister: I quite understand that the hon. Gentleman does not know the nature of hard work, because the Administration which he supported never resisted wage increases.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not inflationary to perambulate from bookshop to bookshop signing copies of one's memoirs in the hope that when they are remaindered this will keep the price up?
  The Prime Minister: I shall obviously have to consider that carefully. I do not think it is necessarily inflationary, certainly not if it helps to keep down the level of bank advances.

  OLDHAM
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Oldham.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Meacher: I regret that, because the Prime Minister would be able to explain to the people of Oldham why South-East Lancashire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—which has the highest proportion of unfit housing in the country is rigidly excluded from any assistance with extra improvement grant under the present Housing Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—just because it is outside any development or intermediate area, even though unemployment in the Oldham area has more than doubled in the last month. Will the
  208
  Prime Minister explain to the people of Oldham—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—this is a question—in what sense he regards housing need as greater or more deserving in the Conservative pocket boroughs of Bridlington, Filey, Oswestry and Tavistock?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with specific questions about housing, he can table a Question to the Minister who is responsible.

  POPULATION
  Sir D. Rentonasked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement as to when Her Majesty's Government propose to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee on Science and Technology with regard to the population of the United Kingdom.
  The Prime Minister: The Government's reply to the recommendations of the Select Committee will be published tomorrow as a White Paper.
  Sir D. Renton: Yes, but can my right hon. Friend now give us any indication whether the Government are accepting the recommendations of the Select Committee, which were unanimous and which were published 2½ months ago?
  The Prime Minister: The Government's have given very serious consideration to the Select Committee's Report. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to await the publication tomorrow so that he can study it in detail.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Instead of all the gloomy talk that is going around about the over-population of the United Kingdom——
  Mr. William Hamilton: The population explosion is not the Prime Minister's fault.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison:—would it not be well to encourage large healthy families and organise migration to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Southern Africa and other parts of the world where it is desirable to maintain the European population?
  The Prime Minister: This is a matter which must be left to the individual concerned.

  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister how many meetings of the National Economic Development Council have taken place under his chairmanship since 18th June, 1970.
  The Prime Minister: Three.
  Dr. Gilbert: At the next meeting of the Council at which the Prime Minister is in the Chair, will he take up the question of the increase in unemployment in the West Midlands in particular? Does he now realise that such a state of affairs has been reached under his Administration that what was originally the heartland of British industry is having just as serious unemployment problems as the formerly depressed regions?
  The Prime Minister: The House knows that these matters were discussed at the last meeting of the N.E.D.C.

  DEFENCE PROCUREMENT ORGANISATION
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry in the setting up of the Defence Procurement Organisation.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Dalyell: Is there not a major row between the civilian department and the military as to who is to have the key jobs, such as the job of Controller, as defined under the Rayner Committee Report?
  The Prime Minister: I had seen that the hon. Gentleman had expressed this view, so I looked into the matter, I find no evidence for his allegations, but if he likes to give me specific evidence of this, of course I will gladly look into it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (No. 2) BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), I want to remind the House of what I said at the end of the debate in February on the Consolidated Fund Bill:
  "Out of 28 topics originally on my list, only eight were discussed in nearly 17 hours. According to my calculations … apart from Ministerial speeches, there were four speeches of over 40 minutes each, six of over 30 minutes each, and nine of over 20 minutes each."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1541.]
  I said then that the House should draw its own conclusions from those figures.
  Before we tackle this hard day's night, I would point out that there are 29 topics which have been ballotted for. I would ask right hon. and hon. Members to be considerate of other hon. Members who wish to make speeches and to confine their speeches to a reasonably short length.

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Brynmor John: After so forbidding a warning, I wonder whether I ought to begin and end simultaneously.
This is an apt time to discuss the First Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution since six months have elapsed since it was laid. This may be a commentary on the priority which we accord to this most important subject.
If I have to be critical of the Report, because it does not in many ways measure up to our high hopes, it is right to pay tribute to the Commission's work and to its performance of a vital rôle in modern Britain, without which we would be absolutely lost. Our chief intention in this debate should be to review the

211
Commission's work critically during the year.
It is necessary to be critical for two main reasons—first, that many of the decisions, as the Commission says, are political, to be taken in the available circumstances of the time, and on the sense of priorities which only hon. Members can give. Thus, this debate is an opportunity not only for private Members to express their anxieties or to raise questions of constituency interest, but also, in the absence of governmental time to discuss this Report, to make clear their views on it. The second reason is that it would be a great disservice to the country and the Commission if, because of the existence of the Commission, we were to suspend our critical faculty on this important subject.
That being so, how should we view this Report? The most vital question is finance. I am sorry that the Commission has not dealt with this in the necessary detail. After all, there is a number of different formulae by which we could finance the correction of pollution. The most superficially attractive is to make the polluters pay for the pollution they cause. But hon. Members must appreciate, as must the public, that that means in the end that the public must pay.
That can be done where the polluting agent is a minority interest by imposing a charge upon the users of the service, but in many of the pollution-making industries, such as the large national corporations, which are themselves in a financial plight and which will not readily bear heavy additional burdens, that will mean that the public will have to pay through taxation. So the doctrine of making the polluter pay comes down to this—that the public must be ready to shoulder the burdens to rectify the pollution of industry.
I have assumed that the pollution is either continuing or of recent cessation. Thus, with the National Coal Board, one of the causes of pollution, either the pollution is still in existence or it has ceased so recently that it is identifiable. But, with historical pollution, which in my view is the weakest element in this Report, one is dealing with entities which went out of existence a long time ago. Therefore, where the pollution is long-standing and
212
the cause no longer exists, people are reluctant to do anything.
Page 34 of the Royal Commission Report contains a cursory reference to derelict land and the fact that local authorities can rectify this with rate support grant. But in the areas of historic pollution, the local authorities are at their weakest. They are the areas of the lowest rateable value, and the regressive tax which is our present rate system does not enable them easily to rectify the situation. Therefore, so that the Royal Commission may make a proper choice and realistic recommendations, I should be grateful if the Government would give some indication of their thinking about financing the rectification of pollution, and the principles that they will bear in mind.
I am afraid that this Report has not started with the right sense of priorities. Much time and effort has been expended on Chapter 5 dealing with the global effects of atmospheric pollution. The subject has called for a great deal of work, as we can see, but it is an altogether "trendy" preoccupation. The reality of the situation, which the Report ignores, is that Britain alone cannot effect an improvement in this field without the cooperation of the rest of the world.
Therefore, as it is necessary to discuss the global effects of atmospheric pollution, our efforts should have been devoted to setting up an international body which could study this situation. As it is, the conclusions reached by the Royal Commission on this subject are meagre in the extreme.
On page 46, we read:
"We see no cause for alarm or for crash programmes of research."
Then why, unless it is to follow fashion, should this have been the first subject referred to the Royal Commission. By all means, let it be considered, but to suggest that it has primacy among all the aspects of environmental pollution which afflict us today is ludicrous.
I fear that this "gimmicky" approach is one to which the Royal Commission has succumbed. I fear that the priorities in its Report reflect basically middle-class attitudes towards pollution. For example, on page 31, referring to the debate on this subject which took place on the Consolidated Fund Bill almost exactly a year ago, and which the Minister now present

213
answered, the Royal Commission referred to the number of speakers who had expressed concern about noise, but it made no mention of the large number of speeches, from these benches in particular, which spoke of our older industrial areas and the dereliction which afflicts them.
Let there be no mistake about it: the older industrial areas have experienced pollution and dereliction for a long time. I reject any thought on the part of the Royal Commission or anyone else that the older industrial areas can be expected to bear this state of affairs indefinitely.
At one point in its Report, the Royal Commission appeals for greater individual responsibility, for example, in not leaving derelict cars and bedsteads littering the countryside. But we shall have no chance of creating that sense of responsibility unless the fight against pollution is seen to be part of people's general fight and not just a fight by the suburban "Top-cats" to maintain their suburban privilege in this matter. Too much of a gap has already grown up in Britain between those who say that in order to preserve amenity we must restrict national growth and those who recognise the wider social interest in this respect. Put simply, the former argument is considerably less attractive to the unemployed man who is trying to bring up young children and give them a decent material existence than it is, say, to a doctor or a college lecturer. Unless we close the gap between these two divergent philosophies, we shall never win the wider battle against pollution, and we shall not close that gap unless we tackle the pollution which is most relevant to the experience of the mass of industrial urban Britain.
On page 11, the Commission speaks of "measures to repair past damage". But, in my belief, it does not fully understand the implications of what it says. I do not know whether the Commission considers land dereliction to be within its remit. On page 44, in the summary of conclusions, the Commission seems to speak of the spread of dereliction as being outside its terms of reference. On page 1, on the other hand, it says:
"We have no specific or restricted task".
If the summary is right and the question of derelict land and the spread of derelict land is outside the Royal Commission's
214
remit, I can only regard this as a great gap in its terms of reference.
The Royal Commission must set about two tasks. Certainly, it must tackle the most pressing new problems of pollution, but it must at the same time make a start on relieving the older areas of the pollution which they have known for many generations. A sense of equity, apart from anything else, demands this, for the older areas, as I have said, want to share in "the better tomorrow" tomorrow, not in a hundred years or more. Therefore, unless the Royal Commission deals with this as one of its most urgent priorities, the older industrial areas will, in this respect as in others, be pushed to the back of the queue with every passing whim of fashion.
There are two major requirements. First, the monitoring system for pollution, now one of the great weaknesses, must be taken up by the Royal Commission as one of its earliest priorities. There is precious little, alarmingly little, known about the continuing pollution of our environment which is going on day by day, and there is no readily accessible means of checking it. For example, the dereliction of land is estimated by many reputable authorities to be continuing at the rate of hundreds of acres per year. Yet when I asked the Welsh Office what was its estimate of continuing land dereliction in Wales, it was unable to supply the figures. It has now commissioned a study, but it frankly says that it will take a considerable time to collect the facts. Such knowledge ought to be at the disposal of any Government who hope realistically to tackle the problem, and it should be at the disposal, also, of any Royal Commission.
Although I agree with the Royal Commission about the value of the work done by voluntary associations in combating pollution, I emphasise that these voluntary associations do not work, and cannot hope to work, with the authority and the expertise which a Royal Commission can command. Indeed, I know of at least one society which takes its decisions on whether to classify a particular piece of land as being polluted on the basis of subjective complaints, and often uncorroborated complaints, from its members. It does this for the simple reason that the funds available to the association to

215
check the veracity of complaints of pollution are not available. One appreciates the genuineness of the concern which such people feel for the environment, but one can none the less envisage the inconsistencies and injustice which arise when land is classed as being polluted upon the basis of subjective complaint.
I have already made the point that the Royal Commission must adopt a fair division of approach as between the newer and the older types of pollution. Such is the menace of living in an environment of derelict land that, in my view, the Royal Commission does itself and its case less than justice when it says—this is paragraph 92—
"There are many other more limited topics of importance. Derelict land, for instance, can be cleaned up by local authorities with the aid of grants from central Government, supplemented in certain instances by voluntary efforts, but much derelict land remains."
That is to understate and underplay the danger and very real hardship which arise from the existence of derelict land today. As I have said, this is a topic to which the Royal Commission must pay greater attention if it is to command universal support in its fight against pollution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in response to your injunction and request for brevity, I add just two or three random points. The Royal Commission rightly says that it cannot be concerned with individual causes of complaint, that is, it cannot act as a sort of environmental ombudsman. But, if that be so, it had better institute some way of monitoring Press reports, local, provincial and national, of such individual cases, for it is often in the individual case that one sees the application of a more general principle to which the Royal Commission could profitably apply itself.
Next—I make this point with my usual lack of contentiousness—we have seen in recent developments the wise way in which the Government can put Government expenditure to a propaganda purpose. If they believe in the seriousness of the fight against pollution, the Government ought to devote to publicising the work of the Royal Commission against environmental pollution a fraction of the concern and the expenditure which they devote to some other topics. In that way, they will reap a harvest in terms of indivi-
216
dual concern and community dedication to the eradication of this problem which will pay them and the nation handsomely.
This has not been a laudatory speech about the First Report of the Royal Commission. Its tone is dictated by the sense of urgency which I feel. There is a great need to transform our inheritance into one which will please our successors. Great idealists tend to forget that the objects of their great thoughts are the individual lives of the men and women who live in Britain today and who will live here in the future. We must translate lofty sentiments into a practical application which will benefit the nation. We all need reminding of that, so that we may chart our course successfully and rightly, so that our fight against pollution and the course which we choose will be the surest and the most beneficial for Britain now and in the years to come.
3.50 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I shall intervene only briefly to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) about derelict areas. Although I understand the Royal Commission's belief that it was not its job to interfere in areas in which other bodies were already working, I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in saying that in all this problem of pollution and of the quality of our environment it is of the utmost importance that this is understood to be a matter of supreme concern to all our people, and not to any one selected group. For that reason, alone, my hon. Friend is right to emphasise this issue, which is of such tremendous concern to so high a proportion of people living in our older industrial areas.
I accept that the Royal Commission has given a special list of the kind of priorities on which it feels other bodies are not at present carrying out any work. I do not quarrel particularly with the emphasis placed by the Commission on the problems of pollution in our estuaries and in our seas, because there is no doubt that these problems, too, affect a large number of people. It is by no means an exclusive interest of a relative minority. It is a matter of real concern, and now that we are making a little hesitant progress—and that is all we can say it is—in our rivers themselves, it is a tragedy

217
that much of that work is being destroyed by the lack of attention, in the past at any rate, to our estuaries; at the point at which they enter the sea.
It has been assumed that the sea can take care of anything that is dumped in it, and that has gone for the estuarial areas, too. I am glad that in my river area of Tyneside the Department has agreed that we should go ahead with the project which has been under review for a long time. There was some check for further examination of it, but I am glad that the scheme for treatment before disposal has been approved, and I take this opportunity of welcoming that.
I hope that in considering the recommendations of the Royal Commission the Minister will take into account certain other very important recommendations that are coming from a number of conferences that axe being held not only in this country but abroad. I recently returned from a conference in Stockholm on the subject of environmental health, which relates very closely, indeed, to all these recommendations, and one in which the public health inspectors in this country have played a large part.
A striking contribution on the wider global side of the problem, was made at the conference by Professor Barry Commoner of the United States, who was trying to concentrate our attention on the supreme importance of the forms of technology that we are using in all our industrial societies, and on the threat which some of these forms of technology may hold for the whole of our environment.
He was arguing that it was not so much a question of population, size and development, nor even so much a question of the standard of wealth, affluence and demand, as one of the particular technical measures that are being adopted to try to provide the mass production that people are demanding. His view is that we need to look very closely, indeed, at many of the processes to which we have become accustomed to see whether the products of those processes, valuable and useful as they are, such as that for the production of synthetic fibres, are not also dangerous, both to our agriculture and, perhaps, in the long-term, to marine life throughout the world.
I think that the Professor was right
218
to direct our attention to this area of the problem so that we can encourage more research into alternative forms of technology and, indeed, into the implications of reverting to the use of more natural fibres, as opposed to artificial ones, on our standard of living and, indeed, on the standards of living of other countries.
I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the matters to which I have referred. I am delighted that at last this country and ordinary people in it are beginning to get woken up to the environmental problems with which they have lived all their lives, but which, for far too long, they have accepted as inevitable. They are not inevitable if we are prepared to pay the price of cleaning them up, and I am therefore delighted that this subject has been raised in the manner that it has by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd.
3.56 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I apologise for missing the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). I think that we owe him a debt of gratitude for raising this subject. It seems that we need a Consolidated Fund Bill every year in order to be able to debate environmental pollution and I am sorry that the Government do not provide more time for this subject to be debated.
I begin by paying a special tribute to the Secretary of State for the Environment. My right hon. Friend has shown tremendous enthusiasm and a great deal of imagination in the way that he has taken up his task. I think it is the right concept to regard environment not only as something one discusses in terms of pollution, but also in terms of housing, road transport as well as cleaning up the countryside. Clearly we need what we have in our Minister, a man of exceptional vigour and ability; and I think we are all conscious of how seriously he is taking his job and how much he has already put into it.
What has been done is, of course, a beginning, and I must pay tribute to the previous Government for having a Minister with special responsibility for this problem. That Minister got round to producing a White Paper so near to the General Election that we shall never

219
know how he might have carried out his task. However, I pay tribute to the fact that the previous Government felt that this was a subject which required special Ministerial attention.
I was struck by one remark of the hon. Member for Pontypridd, when he talked about people participating. This is one of the aspects of environmental pollution that has not come through. Ordinary people do not see themselves as environmental polluters. They look to the central Government, or to local government, to clean up the mess. What they will not do is to ask themselves who created the mess in the first place.
I notice that the "Keep Britain Tidy" campaign has come out with the slogan: "For Pete's sake clean up the litter." I assume that "Pete" may be the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I hope that for his sake, and for the sake of any other "Petes" that we may know, we shall take that slogan to heart, because the amount of litter that is left in some of the most beautiful parts of the country every weekend is appalling. I am sure that people who throw away ice-cream paper or leave a bottle on the heather do not think to themselves that they are spoiling their countryside. They just do not connect themselves with the environment in which they live. But they must and then see themselves as one of the great polluters who could do so much, by so little effort, to make so many parts of this country pleasant for themselves and for others.
I want to concentrate my remarks on two items in the Report, one relating to noise and the other to air pollution. I shall confine my remarks to the question of noise from vehicles, aircraft and in industry. We are all aware of aircraft noise. Nobody who lives in central London can escape it. Question Time after Question Time hon. Members with constituencies close to airports ask all sorts of Questions about bringing some form of relief to their hapless constituents. While I know there are grants for the soundproofing of houses, I suggest that to have to live in a house with the windows continuously shut cannot be the sort of environment that most of us would wish upon people.
Is there nothing else that we can do before the quieter-engined aircraft come
220
into service in the middle or towards the end of this decade? I want to offer one suggestion. It may not have much mileage in it, but in my opinion it should be explored. At the moment night flights have to operate out of ariports at a quieter noise level than do daylight flights, by as much as six decibels—and six decibels, because noise is measured on a logarithmic scale, represents a considerable reduction in noise.
I understand that one way in which this is achieved is by aircraft taking off lighter loaded than it would be in daylight and thus requires less power to get into the air. An aircraft that is going to fly across the Atlantic must take its full load of fuel if it is to reach the end of the flight, but I ask my hon. Friend why it is necessary for aircraft on short-haul daylight flights to be so fully loaded with fuel to complete their flights. Can we not insist that aircraft on short-haul flights should not be required to fill their tanks to capacity? After all, any alleviation in noise levels from aircraft during daylight hours would be a great boon.
I also suggest that we should get away from the idea of having a standard noise level for all aircraft operating during the day and another standard for all aircraft operating at night.
Mr. John: Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that the Civil Aviation Bill, which I believe is in the Lords at the moment, by means of a new Clause introduced by the Government in Committee, has laid down a procedure which, if adopted by airport authorities, could bring about the sort of beneficial results of which he speaks?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I agree. I hope that the hon. Member is right. But at the moment there is no clear sign that we shall vary the noise level, according to the length of flight and, therefore, according to how much fuel must be carried.
I turn now to the question of vehicle and motor-cycle noise. These are two old chestnuts. We probably all agree that it is not the new car or the new motor cycle that we have to worry about, but the old banger and the motor cycle that has been modified by its owner. The people who drive those cars or ride those motor cycles fit into my category of people who do not think of themselves as polluters of the environment but who

221
cause a tremendous amount of nuisance and discomfort to many other people. To catch them we are forced into the position of creating better enforcement measures than we possess at the moment.
Ever since the police disappeared into their panda cars and we lost the man on the beat, they have forfeited the ability to stop the banger that goes by or the loud motor cycle simply because they do not hear them. If we are not to have the man on the beat we must try to find some one else whose job is to do with traffic who can enforce the law as a result of what he hears. Better than that, he could carry a hand-held noise meter, since the meters laid down in the motor vehicle regulations are almost useless in city centres because there is no space to;set them up according to the provisions in the regulations.
There seems to be one man—I use the word generically—who can fulfil this task, namely, the traffic warden. He is continuously on the beat. He is continuously in touch with vehicles. He surely could be equipped with a handheld noise meter and could be responsible for instituting prosecutions against offending motorists who do not keep their vehicles in order.
Furthermore, the Ministry of Transport vehicle tests could be made much more stringent in terms of checking for faulty silencers, squealing brakes, and so on. The combination of stricter tests for vehicles and men on the beat with noise meters to catch those who break the noise regulations would do much to dissuade people from being so careless about the noise emitted by their vehicles.
My next point relates particularly to heavy vehicles, although it could apply to cars. I believe that in America they have tried out the idea of setting up noise metering stations on the main roads into cities. We all know about the radar traps, which are quite effective. I suggest that we should have something similar using noise monitoring equipment.
In this case the noise requirements in the vehicle regulations could come into play because there is space to set up such stations by the roadside. These, equipped with some form of television camera taking photographs of the number plates of vehicles going through, could give us a record of the law-breakers
222
as they come into our cities. That information, fed into the Scotland Yard computer, would allow us to apprehend the drivers and insist that their vehicles are tested. Their owners would then be fined if their vehicles were clearly shown to have been making far too much noise.
So much for vehicles, motor cycles and aircraft. We must also remember the drivers who drive without regard for other people—the young men in their sports cars who at midnight must rev up their engines before beginning their journeys. They do not think for a moment of the people who are trying to sleep and will be given a rough night. They, too, should be made aware of the fact that they are environmental polluters. I repeat; people must see themselves in terms of environmental pollution, and the Government must insist on laws which can be enforced and which will restrict these polluters from making the noise for which they are at present responsible.
The solution to lorry noise is in the end a network of lorry routes, which I have continually advocated. They would take heavy lorries making their way to the ports out of all urban areas and away from small towns and villages where, quite apart from noise, their vibration does considerable damage.
We must also bear in mind the suggestion of the Association of Public Health Inspectors for noise-free zones in the cities. A noise-free zone with vehicles may be difficult to achieve, but having seen at least one electric car demonstrated in the London area I feel that such vehicles might do a great deal to make life more bearable.
Lastly, on the question of noise, I want to speak about deafness. Many of us were amazed that a charity entertainment arranged this year by the Royal National Institute for the Deaf did not receive sufficient support to enable it to take place in the centre of London. Commenting on it the Institute's journal makes the point that deafness is a handicap to which most of us are insufficiently sympathetic. A deaf person often causes irritation. To have to raise one's voice continually in conversation is something that one seldoms wants to do. I believe deafness to be one of the most serious and unfortunate social disabilities that any human being can suffer. If one thinks

223
of all the things which are denied to a deaf person, one will perhaps have a great deal more sympathy for those suffering from this affliction. I suggest that if we are considering any sort of revision of the Factory Acts we should consider adding a provision which will allow compensation to be paid to those who are made deaf by the noise within which they have to work.
My final point on the question of motor vehicles relates to fumes and smoke. I am convinced that better checks on lorries in particular would root out many of the offenders whom we see so frequently in our streets. Indeed, one does not have to drive in London for long before coming across this nuisance. Lorries pouring out unburned diesel smoke on all and sundry can easily be made less offensive if the engines are properly adjusted.
I was very impressed by a visit that I paid to the London Transport garage at Chiswick, where I saw the enormous amount of trouble which is taken there to make sure that the vaporisers in the engines are continually adjusted. As they say themselves, any sign of a large emission of smoke from a bus will very quickly be got at by the mechanics. Indeed, the driver is specially requested to observe in one of his mirrors whether his bus is making any smoke. At the moment a very good job is being done with London buses, but the same does not apply to other vehicles in London, particularly lorries. Very often the lorries are under-powered, which causes the drivers to race their engines and use their engines at a higher power. This in turn creates more diesel smoke. Very often the amount of maintenance done on the engines seems to allow them to become smoky.
There are not enough prosecutions, and so these smoky vehicles go through the centres of our cities making life unbearable for people. I suggested a handheld noise meter. If we cannot have a hand-held smoke meter, can we have smoke meters installed in the cabs of these vehicles so that the drivers would get some warning when their vehicles become inefficient? They could then be taken into a garage where the engines could be adjusted. I believe that prosecutions are necessary. Until people start paying for polluting the atmosphere they will
224
not take any of our exhortations very seriously. I ask the Minister to give special thought to the possibility of enforcement of the smoke limits and the prosecution of those who exceed them.
Lastly I wish to refer to the possibilities of electricity and liquified petroleum gas for driving particularly in cities. I was very sorry indeed that in the Finance Bill there was a Clause imposing a tax on L.P.G. This, in my opinion, is one of the few pollution-free fuels in this country. At the moment there are only about 1,000 vehicles running on it, but it is an ideal fuel for vehicles such as buses, taxis and indeed any heavy vehicles running in an urban area. I know that we have not yet decided the rate of duty to be imposed, and I very much hope that the duty will not be so high as to dissuade people from converting those sorts of vehicles to use it. It costs about £150 to convert a vehicle, so that the idea that it will become attractive to ordinary motorists is not a strong argument. But until we have a pollution-free fuel or a better made diesel engine which will burn fuel more thoroughly, we shall have to live with the problem of smoke and carbon monoxide. Therefore, we must not discourage the use of any fuel or mechanical device which may reduce that amount of pollution.
I ask my hon. Friend to give as much thought as he can to encouraging the use of fuels like L.P.G. within our cities, and in particular to give us some idea of how much progress is being made in terms of getting a suitable heavy duty battery which will make electrical vehicles a reality.
I have concentrated almost exclusively on two problems arising from motor vehicles. Both of them cause a great deal of nuisance, loss of amenity and sometimes ill health to many thousands, if not millions, of people every day. I welcome the opportunity of raising these subjects and I look forward to my hon. Friend's reply.
4.16 p.m.
Mr. Joseph Harper: I hope that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson), who spoke in last year's debate, will forgive me if I do not follow him. We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) for

225
initiating this debate on environmental pollution. It is only right, I think, that the hon. Member for Pontefract should support him, since I too on 21st July last year took part in a similar debate on pollution.
We in the West Riding know what pollution is. We seem to have more pollution than anybody—pollution of the air, water and soil, as well as all the other kinds of pollution. It is not only an extremely important subject. It is real. It is with us. In fact, it is too real. Nobody seems to be able to tackle it adequately.
The debate is based on the First Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. I hope I shall be forgiven if I appear to be a little sceptical because the Report—I am basing my speech on Chapter III, page 24, paragraph 58—gives the impression that the Committee has not really got down to this part of the problem. I am referring to the pollution caused by hard detergents flowing into our rivers. We in Pontefract have a special interest in this because in one of the towns in my constituency the river runs right through the centre, and we get the worst of everything. In fact, we bear the brunt of all the river pollution in the shape of foam which is worse there than in any other city or town in the United Kingdom.
The Report says:
"Pollution by hard detergents is far less of a problem now than it was a decade ago, because modern household detergents are broken down by bacteria (that is, they are 'biodegradable')."
The Report should have said that the bacteria in the water eats them up. The Report goes on to say:
"However, detergents used in textile factories are less easy to make biodegradable, and effluents containing these detergents are liable to cause foaming in rivers."
Liable! It does cause foaming in rivers, as the photographs which I handed to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) show. In fact, they had to be seen to be believed. Paragraph 58 goes on to say:
"But here, too, progress toward biodegradable detergents is being made, so that the end of this problem should soon be in sight, even though total detergent consumption in Britain continues to rise."
In an affluent society, the consumption of detergents will continue to rise. Women
226
will want their husband's shirts to be brighter than those of their neighbours. I do not want to give a "commercial" by mentioning names, but women use certain brands of detergents to get the clothes whiter. But the harder the detergent, the whiter it makes the clothes, the dirtier our rivers become.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Back to soap.
Mr. Harper: No. That would be like going back to the old days when black lead was used on grates.
I was not a Member of the House when the previous Conservative Government set up the Standing Committee on Technical Detergents. That was over 13 years ago. Perhaps I shall be forgiven for, so to speak, transporting myself back 13 years and quoting from the First Report of the Standing Committee on Technical Detergents. I hoped that it would be the forerunner of better things but, although it did a good job, it did not find a solution.
I do not wish to bore the House by referring to the speech I made last year, notwithstanding the fact that it was a good one. This problem has been with us since the late 1950s. The present Under-Secretary of State gave a comprehensive reply to the debate last year, but he did not answer the points I raised, not because he wished to evade them, but because there was no answer to them. Following the debate, I asked the Minister whether he would meet myself and a deputation on this problem. He accepted with alacrity and met us. He said at the meeting "Let us get down to some real work. We will divide the problem into three parts—the causes, the palliatives and the solutions". The question of the causes did not take two minutes; we knew what they were. The palliatives were not really palliatives, as we discovered with the benefit of hindsight. We have not yet found the solutions. This prompted my town clerk to say that industry was allowed to get away with what private individuals could not get away with.
The Under-Secretary of State was genuine and sincere in his desire to deal with the problem and, in particular, with the problem of pollution of the environment, whether of the air, the water or the soil. But in view of the nation's economics problems, which we had when

227
we were in Government, we come unstuck when we try to solve the problem with the money available. A moment or two ago my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said "Back to soap". It is easy for him to say that, but others of us do not wish to adopt old methods.
Mr. Blenkinsop: Soft soap.
Mr. Harper: Anyone who does not have to live with this problem can view it with a little hilarity. I shall not quote again the verse from Sir Walter Scott which I quoted last year. This problem reminds me of the dance tune which was popular in the 1930s, "June in January". In Castleford it is the other way about; it is January in June. When it is in a certain direction, the wind whips up the foam and blows it all over the place and it drops like snow flakes over a radius of about three miles.
The Minister said that if the economic situation improved more would be done about trying to find a solution to this problem. He said at the meeting we had with him that he would meet the C.B.I. which, he understood, was very sympathetic about the problem and he would ask it to give him an undertaking about what it intended to do. He referred to the nature of the product. He said that the representatives agreed that the long-term solution was to get industry to move over to using biodegradable materials—in other words, softer materials.
I want the Minister to tell us whether anything has been done about this matter. He said that we must get in touch with the woollen industry concerning the area around Bradford because that is where the material is tipped in the river. We are downstream and therefore we get it. Then we were advised to get in touch with the river authority. I never knew how many authorities there were in charge of rivers until we started dealing with this problem. The Minister expected that the river authority were aware and that they had some difficulty in imposing on industry things that they could not impose on local authorities, but he would take the matter up particularly with the river authority and get a report from them.
The Under-Secretary of State said that the question of rivers was under review
228
by the Wilson Committee, which was dealing with the problem of sewage and water as a whole, and that before any decision was taken on local government reform some policy had to be formulated on water and sewage undertakings.
The Minister made a point about spraying. He said that spraying a river will break up the material and the river will flow and take it along with it. That just does not happen. The spray breaks it up, but the wind gets under it and whips it up. The same volume of soap suds flies about, but it is dispersed over a larger area—a good Socialist philosophy, but we take a dim view of it in this instance. The material is shared more evenly among more people. Perhaps the Minister will also deal with this point.
One of the Department's officials said that this was primarily a matter for the Minister of Transport. So the Ministry of Transport comes into the spraying problem. The Railways Board apparently made an objection to the effect that if bridges were sprayed they would in time become affected. This reminds me of the old Chinese proverb about constant dripping wearing away stone. Therefore, the Railways Board also took a dim view of the matter.
Later we sent a letter to the British Waterways Board asking it to look into the question of the design of the weir. We contend that the drop of the weir causes the material to churn up. It has the same effect as a washing machine. It agitates the detergent and causes foam. Letters have also been sent by the Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government to the British Waterways Board and the Mini-try of Transport about modifications to the weir.
This year, in May, the 12th Report was published, and Castleford figures very prominently in it. Following publication of the Report, there was a report in the Press saying that the C.B.I. had banned the use of hard detergents. On hearing this, Castleford nearly had a bank holiday. There was great rejoicing. We thought that this was the end of our problems. But apparently the Press, as usual, had got it all wrong. The town clerk, feeling a little uneasy, later got in touch with the authorities and found that it was a false alarm. In retrospect, one realises that the C.B.I. does not have

229
the authority to ban people from using hard detergents or even from selling them. The present position is that the first spray has been in use for 12 months, and just spreads the stuff around. We have put in a second spray, and reports so far indicate that it has not made things better. A full report is due shortly.
In Chapter 2, paragraph 15, the Royal Commission Report states:
"The economic reason why society may not strike the right balance between economic output and the quality of the environment is that the costs of many kinds of pollution are borne not by the polluters but by someone else."
In this instance Castleford is the "someone else":
"As a result these 'external' costs will not, in general, be taken fully into account by firms, individuals or other bodies who cause pollution. The other side of the coin is that those who spend money on reducing pollution may not always be the people who gain from the resulting improvement in the environment. This applies to both 'tangible' pollution, such as the poisoning of fish in polluted waters, and to 'intangible" pollution, such as unpleasant smells or ugly landscapes."
We have plenty of those, but I am not talking about fish that may be poisoned, although that does happen, nor am I talking about ugly landscapes, although we have plenty of those. Nor am I referring to unpleasant smells—the less I say about those the better. What I emphasise is that even with the second spray the foam still blows around all over the place, and causes great distress.
Again, in paragraph 16(a) the Report states:
"Output of goods and services which give rise to pollution tends to be pushed beyond the socially optimum point. Also, expenditure to reduce pollution will often be inadequate."
We must have cleaner rivers, but if no one is prepared to make a sufficient financial appropriation towards a solution we shall not make much progress. It will be seen that, by and large, those who cause the pollution are not paying: it is those who are most affected who have to pay. I have already made the point that we in Castelford cannot afford any more finance for seeking a solution, and we have asked the Minister to help us. The Reports of the Standing Committee do not help much—we get loads of sympathy, which we do not need. What we need is financial aid in finding a solution, and seeing what can be done at least to reduce the problem or keep
230
it in check. Those who cause the pollution should pay for it.
4.35 p.m.
Mr. Peter HardyI congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) on raising this very important subject and on adopting a very constructive approach to it. I am tempted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) in many directions, but I will content myself by saying that I regret he did not use that quotation from Sir Walter Scott which he has used before; and that I am happy that he has not handed over disgusting photographs to the Parliamentary Secretary.
The Royal Commission has commenced its task of identifying the various problems and priorities involved in environmental pollution and there will be a general welcome for its first Report. The Commission is clearly taking great care to avoid any suggestion that its deliberations are hasty or ill-considered, and one cannot criticise such a thorough approach, but if, as the first Report shows, the Commission is acting with unhurried prudence one is entitled to hope that the Government will not risk excessive delay by exhibiting a most protected caution on their own part. That is dangerous. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd was rather worried about the perhaps somewhat bourgeois approach of the members of the Royal Commission, but I am worried more about the niggardly fists of the Treasury when it comes to providing the financial resources required if we are to improve our environment.
The first Report seems to do very little to encourage those who believe that our environmental doom is imminent, but it suggests that there is much to be done, and to be done swiftly, if the various problems are to be tackled.
My hon. Friend mentioned the need for urgent addition in regard to historic pollution, in dealing with the dereliction of the past, and there is a great deal to be done there. I have many strong views on that subject.
My own particular concern is with water supply. Whilst the Commission says that current proposals and investigations will make a very real contribution

231
to the improvement of our rivers, I suggest that urgent and large scale action is needed. The Report states that progressive policies to improve our rivers have already produced dramatic results which are both desirable and generally welcome.
I believe that sooner or later the barrage scheme will be the solution of the problem of water supply, but until this can be established there are dangers that more and more of the quiet places will be destroyed, disfigured or interfered with if we are to have sufficient water. Places like these should be retained, and in order to assist their retention more vigorous action is needed in, perhaps, the busier industrial areas, where there is already serious pollution of the various water courses, to assist in the necessary improvement of those industrial areas so as to make the river waters there usable, and perhaps we need a more unified structure of water supply administration.
The Commission also suggests that we could improve our water supply by improved sewage treatment. A great deal has been done and is being done in this respect, but much remains to be done. As the demand for water grows, as the need for pure water rises, so in our increasingly affluent society the amount of effluent deposited in our rivers increases, but since rivers remain of constant size it follows that if within a generation there is twice the amount of effluent entering the rivers that effluent will have to be twice as clean if we are to maintain pollution at even its present level. If we are to obtain any advance in the improvement of our rivers, it clearly means that within the next decade or two effluent entering those rivers will have to be much more than twice as clean as it is at present.
The improvement of our rivers would be very popular and very desirable. In every constituency there is a large number of anglers. There are a large number of people in my constituency who are extremely fond of fishing. But the rivers which are accessible in my area—the Don, the Dearne and the Rother—are not rivers which offer very much opportunity for people to indulge in angling. Hundreds of thousands of fishermen, most of whom are taxpayers, would welcome
232
the expenditure of public funds in promoting the improvement of rivers in industrial areas, not merely so that they could indulge their hobby, but so that we could take water from those rivers for domestic and industrial use and thus prevent the despoliation of the pretty and remote areas which are now under threat. Many hundreds of thousands of people do not have the patience to fish, but they, too, would welcome an improvement in our rivers.
The First Report suggests that a very useful way to make our water cleaner would be to take steps to restrict the pollution from the manure produced by the factory farm, which is increasingly a problem. I understand, and the Report confirms, that the manure, a valuable fertiliser, is frequently not used on the fields but is perhaps turned into a wet slurry which finds its way into the rivers and streams. I am not a scientist, but I think that I can understand the view that that sort of pollution allows organisms to breed in our rivers, organisms which use oxygen and thus compete with fish and other river life, and render the river or stream dead so that it turns into a stinking sewer. We have enough stinking sewers. It is time for action to remove them.
It is probably fair to say that most of our farmers conduct their business with a responsible attitude. It may well be only a minority of fanners who engaged in such pollution. By offering grants or other encouragement, the Government should quickly induce those involved in agriculture to refrain from using manure in that way and make sure that it is used where it can be valuable, on the fields.
Perhaps the same comment about the majority of farmers acting responsibly can be made about the use of pesticides. It may be only a minority who use them in harmful ways. The Report has many valuable comments and much good, sound advice on the question of pesticides. It makes one very important point in presenting the view of the Advisory Committee on Pesticides and Other Toxic Chemicals, which says that, whilst voluntary restrictions in the use of organochlorines has brought about a very real improvement and reduction in their use, this is not universal, that the risks are still great and that therefore

233
the Government should not be hesitant or reluctant about acquiring responsibility for exercising necessary control over those substances. In recent years there has been a sizeable reduction in the residual levels of such poisons in human and animal tissue, but the levels are still very serious, and there are no grounds for satisfaction yet. Therefore central control sooner or later will have to be exercised, and I hope that there will be no excessive hesitation.
I recently read a report about the control of red mites on dahlias at the Royal Horticultural Society Centre at Wisley which contained a very important message for us. It was found that the most effective and persistent control of the pest was exercised not so much by pesticides, which led to the development of resistance, but by the use of predatory insects acting as a form of biological control, which seems to be more and more the right way to control the pests which affect our agriculture. But biological control is inhibited by the use of pesticides. They cannot be particularly discriminating, but destroy pests and predator as well. I hope that the Royal Commission and the Government will be prepared to encourage the use of biological control, and that the Government will be prepared to give sufficient public funds to allow research into this activity on the largest possible scale.
Such developments could lead to not merely a reduction in pollution but an increase in the profitability of various activities connected with the problem. It perhaps is not generally felt that we should look at the removal of pollution from the point of view of economics but that we should look for social rather than economic advantages. Improvement in the environment can be not merely socially desirable but economically useful, since it can enhance and create wealth.
In so far as the First Report points the way, we welcome it, but the onus of action must lie on the Government. I hope that the necessary decisions will not be delayed very much longer.
4.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I am very glad that the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) has chosen the Royal Commission's First Report as one
234
of the first topics of debate today. He has a shrewd eye for important occasions. I remember with some pleasure his lucid maiden speech in another debate on the work of the Royal Commission just a year ago. It had then only just started its work and we were all concerned to give Sir Eric Ashby and his colleagues a good deal of advice, solicited or otherwise, on how to go about their job. I am not sure whether they heeded all the advice offered by the House in detail, but I know that in a remarkably short time they have produced the admirable document which we are discussing.
I say, "admirable" for several reasons. It is a clear statement of some of the most complex problems with which we are dealing; it is the first adequate and authoritative description of the state of our environment; it manages to avoid the hysteria which any reference to pollution can bring on among some commentators; and it gives clear advice to Governments on those issues which the members of the Commission regard as the most important.
The hon. Gentleman in opening the debate was critical of the Commission for saying comparatively little about derelict land. But it is open to the members of the Commission to decide what priority they shall give to the various objects within their remit, and I do not think that they can reasonably be criticised for judging that that subject is not one that they wanted to put at the top of their agenda at this stage. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point and will draw it to the attention of the Royal Commission. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced a 10-year programme to encourage the rescue of derelict land, and we shall continue to push that forward with the generous assistance available to local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman was also somewhat critical—I do not complain of his being critical, of course—that the Royal Commission had devoted a good deal of attention to the problem of global atmospheric pollution. But the previous Government, in my judgment rightly, asked the Royal Commission specifically to consider that matter, and I believe that they were right to do so, because it is a very complex scientific problem with very serious possible effects on climate.

235
The Government's attitude to the Royal Commission's Report is one of a very warm welcome to its work. Of the many statements in the Report, there are four with which I know my right hon. Friend completely agrees. The first is the statement in paragraph 3 that:
"… a great deal has been done, and is being done, to safeguard the natural environment of Britain."
The right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), who has worked hard in this vineyard, will agree that our agencies, our legislation, have done a great deal to safeguard the natural environment.
Secondly, in paragraph 4, the Commission goes on to say:
"This record of action nevertheless is no ground for complacency."
We agree with that statement, too. Thirdly, in paragraph 29 it says:
"What we have to achieve is a combined operation between public opinion, economic incentive and legislation".
I am sure that hon. Gentlemen would agree with that.
The fourth statement, with which we agree, is in paragraph 11 where the Commission says:
"Nothing less than a comprehensive policy for the environment will suffice."
It is in the spirit of these four statements that I should like to comment on the wide range of subjects which we have discussed. The first thing is to get the machinery of Government right with regard to the environment. It is a matter of no difference between the two sides of the House that the Department of the Environment has been set up. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman would agree that if his party had remained in office they would very likely have set up such a department as we have created. It gives my right hon. Friend comprehensive and executive responsibility over a wide range of Government agencies. It has enabled us to get rid of some of the wasteful competition between agencies and bureaucracies and, above all, enabled us to try to think and act environmentally right across the board.
Perhaps I can most conveniently respond to the points made under three or four main heads, and mention first the matter of clean air. Our country, under all governments, has a good record here. We have seen low-level smoke concentra-
236
tions fall in urban areas by 60 per cent. since 1956. We have seen low-level concentrations of sulphur dioxide fall by one-third since 1956. Last winter there was a setback to our smoke control programme because of a shortage of solid smokeless fuel and, as a result, over one-quarter of all smoke control orders had to be suspended. I am glad to say that this problem has been overcome. With the help of a mild winter, and by dint of keeping open obsolete gas works, importing smokeless fuel wherever we could find it, and through the excellent cooperation of local authorities we have been able to increase the supply and to hold down consumption to a point at which the shortage is now officially over. We have, therefore, issued a circular urging all concerned once again to go full ahead with smoke control.
I turn from domestic smoke to industrial processes that contaminate the air. The House will be familiar with the excellent work of the Alkali Inspectorate, an organisation which has the great merit of working with, and not against, industry and local authorities. We have recently been able to bring under control a number of new processes concerning mineral and petrochemical industries, aluminium smelters and a whole range of plastic and acrylate manufactures. My right hon. Friend also laid fairly recently a number of new Orders controlling dust and grit emissions.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) rightly referred to air pollution from motor vehicles. Here I must say that I regard the internal combustion engine—one of the greatest boons brought to man—as being equally a potential threat to the quality of our lives, especially in urban areas. In some ways now that we are within sight of overcoming the main problem of domestic smoke from the old-fashioned coal fireplace, the motorcar and the lorry between them may be the main source of air contamination in our major cities. It is right to keep this in perspective. Because we do not suffer from the special climatic conditions which make vehicle exhausts such a noxious threat in Los Angeles, we do not need to rush into the sometimes, perhaps, excessive antipollution controls as have been set up in California. We cannot, however, be indifferent to this danger.

237
The policy of the Secretary of State is to adopt a much less complacent, though still severely practical, approach to pollution from internal combustion. I quote two specific examples. We have already made regulations, following upon the groundwork laid by the right hon. Gentleman, requiring all new cars sold after 1st January, 1972 to be fitted with a crank-case breather. That means a recycling of the crank-case gases which will reduce hydrocarbon emissions by about 30 per cent. We have also introduced a new British Standard, A.U.141, which will govern emissions from diesel engines. Recently I went to the Motor Industry Research Association at Nuneaton to see this new standard being launched and, having watched heavy lorries being put through their paces, some governed down to the new British Standard and others to the current American and European levels, I can assure the House that in this area at least our new regulations, which I expect will come into effect next year, will reduce the smoke levels from heavy lorries to well below those now accepted by most of our industrial competitors.
All this is useful progress, but I agree that we cannot afford to let up. One reason for this is the health aspect. We do not know enough about the long-term effects of the more complex contaminants present in car exhausts—for example, lead, nitrogen and various types of oxides to be sure of the long-term effects and therefore all Governments have a duty to be, if anything, excessively cautious.
The other reason why we cannot be indifferent is that it would be commercially foolish to allow our competitors to steal a march on us in low-pollution vehicles. The main selling point for motor cars of the future may well be not their colour, shape or performance but their safety, reliability, and their low levels of noise and pollution. A prudent regard for public health chimes in with economic good sense. Sensible, practical progress towards lower pollution from the internal combustion engine is therefore, on all scores, a sound aim of Government policy.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: We can all agree that this is a marvellous development, but lorries and cars do not remain new. There are already 2,000 regulations. What will happen if, in the
238
future as now, motorists and lorry drivers refuse to observe these regulations? We can see what happens now when no one troubles to enforce the law.
Mr. Griffiths: Not for the first time the hon. Gentleman is on a perfectly good point, also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East. We can make all the regulations we like but in the end they must be enforced. The hon. Gentleman should not be too pessimistic, because there are about 12,000 prosecutions for noise alone annually. This is a small but significant number. It is up to any citizen to lay information to bring a prosecution. This point of enforcement is one of which the Government are well aware.
What we are doing here has to be based on the exact state of information. Hon. Members will be interested to know that, on the medical side of air contamination from vehicles, we have initiated a great deal of practical research. For example, the Road Research Laboratory and the Warren Springs Laboratory have joined in a one-month survey of the total emission of pollutants from all vehicles at a roadside site in one particular town. This will measure, precisely and for the first time, the exact relationship between traffic density, traffic composition, and the breakdown in the air of carbon oxides, hydrocarbons, nitrogen, lead and other trace elements, so that we shall know precisely what we are talking about.
Simultaneously, the Medical Research Council is monitoring the amount of airborne lead, nitrogen and hydrocarbons in two places in London—in Fleet Street and outside St. Bartholomew's Hospital; the Atomic Energy Research Establishment is working on the photochemical effect of sunlight on air containing hydrocarbons and sulphur dioxide; the MacCauley Institute is monitoring the uptake of lead by soil and crops in the vicinity of busy roads; and a whole series of other investigations are constantly going on into the effects of exhaust fumes on people, for example, of the lead content in the blood of certain people who drive a great deal, and so on. I think that we can therefore claim to be keeping on our toes as far as the collection of scientific evidence is concerned. We are fortunate in having the Central Unit on Environmental Pollution to advise us, in addition to the Royal Commission.

239
On the other side of the coin—the commercial side—our aim is to work out suitable and practical standards for reducing vehicle pollution in company with our European neighbours who also make motorcars, mainly France, Germany, Sweden and Italy. Broadly speaking, it is our policy to move towards, first, adopting the ECE standards on limiting carbon-monoxide and hydrocarbons; secondly, to join in an examination of the problem of lead in exhausts; and, thirdly, to promote longer-term research so as to keep this difficult problem under review.
I turn now to the question of water, a subject on which a number of hon. Members spoke. The first thing to say is that we have to stop taking our water for granted, as something which just happens when we turn on the tap. Water in this country is too expensive to collect, transport and distribute to be wantonly wasted or polluted—or, indeed, flushed away at the rate of two gallons every time a school child goes to the bathroom. Increasingly, we must recognise that water supply and sewerage—I am including industrial effluents as well as domestic sewage—are two sides of the same coin.
Already, one-third of the water we drink in our major cities is taken out of rivers that previously have received sewage and industrial discharges. The odds are that this glass of water before me on the Table has been drunk by at least one person, and possibly several other people before it has reached hon. Members. That the water we drink tonight will be tomorrow morning's sewage is something we have known and regarded as normal for centuries. But what we now have got to get used to is that tomorrow morning's sewage will end up, suitably purified, as the water in hon. Members' whisky next weekend. That is the reality of water management in this country today.
We must therefore regard water management and sewage management as two stages of the same process. That, of course, was the conclusion of the Central Advisory Water Committee and its view has been accepted by the Secretary of State. It follows that we must regard our rivers not simply as drains and sewers but as water pipes.
240
There are already controls on the amount of new effluents discharged into the rivers or sewers, and these include farm effluents as well. But we may well have to tighten these controls, to improve our methods of sewage treatment, to extend our effluent controls to the estuaries, as recommended in the Jeger Working Party's Report, to ask industry to pay a larger share of the cost of dealing with the more complex effluents which it seeks to get rid of nowadays into waterways and sewers, and to guard against the pollution of ground water by the run off from toxic refuse tips.
Again and again one kind of pollution spills over into another. Keeping our water supplies clean depends to an increasing extent on how we dispose of our rubbish. I am sure that the House will be familiar with the recent report on waste disposal and the report of the working party on the disposal of solid toxic wastes. These show that, out of 14 million tons of waste of which we dispose each year, not less than 200,000 tons is toxic and this, of course, is a serious problem inasmuch as it may affect the head streams of some of our rivers.
These reports, and the speeches of hon. Members, underline the need for a total approach to pollution. Just as the disposal of rubbish by incineration involves clean air policy, so the seepage of toxic solid waste into water courses requires river boards to work with local sanitation departments, and, through them, with the planners, in order to have a comprehensive view of pollution as a whole. All this has a bearing on local government reform, because one must look at these things in total.
I want now to mention some of the points concerning rivers which were raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), who is an expert on this matter. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) also raised, as he has before, the problem of foaming on the Aire. I will deal first with Castle-ford. I well remember—how could I forget?—the photographs he presented to me which displayed the possibility of losing a motorcar in the foam at Castleford on certain days of the year.
The information I have to give to him today is that the first of two pumps which are being provided by the river authority

241
has been installed. The river authority tells me that this has caused some improvement but I gather that there is a difference of opinion between the river authority and the local council about how substantial that improvement has been. Whether the second pump will help, I cannot say. I do not know whether it has yet been installed. But I can say that, following the deputation he was good enough to bring to my Department, we have looked into this matter with the C.B.I. and with our departmental working party, and progress is being made in the development of detergents which will satisfy the special needs of the rather greasy industrial processes in the Bradford area.
This is not an easy problem but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Commission is quite right in saying that the general situation is improving dramatically. The problem here is not the sort of detergents used by housewives. It is the special hard detergents which are used exclusively in the wool industry in Bradford. We are not unmindful of his anxiety and I will pursue the points he has made with the Department and with the C.B.I.
Turning to other rivers, I recently visited the River Trent, when I had the pleasure of opening a £4 million sewerage works at Burton-on-Trent. Although, as we must recognise, an extraordinary amount of filth is still being brought down stream in the River Tame from the Black Country, there has nevertheless been a remarkable improvement in both the quality and quantity of fishing in the Trent both above and below Nottingham.
I have also taken the opportunity to visit the Tyne, and the House will be glad to know that we have agreed to an expenditure of £30 million for its comprehensive improvement. The Tees is still a problem, but I have had the opportunity of meeting both industrialists—there is a heavy concentration of industrial power of all kinds, chemical, steels and so on—and local authorities in the area. Once the county borough has its new sewerage schemes under way and the industrialists have improved their discharges into the estuary—and I believe that we are well on the way to seeing
242
those things done—there can be a substantial improvement in the Tees estuary, too.
I ought to mention the Mersey where, two weeks, ago, I had the opportunity to meet all the largest industrialists in the area and the local authorities in the estuary area. Arising out of that, a new steering committee has been formed, and a phased and costed programme for the improvement of the Mersey by the early 1980s is under consideration by all authorities on Merseyside under the leadership of the river authority, and we can look forward, now that the resources, technology, and above all, good will and cooperation are available, to the Mersey estuary being cleaned up, first by getting rid of the gross pollution on the beaches at New Brighton, and, secondly, by reintroducing oxygen into the river so that it does not become anerobic and smell.
We are concerned not merely with discharges into rivers, but with discharges into the sea. My right hon. Friend and I have recently had some useful discussions with the French and German Ministers concerned and I believe that by the time the United Nations Conference on the Environment is held in Stockholm, we shall be able to report some useful progress in cleaning up the North Sea.
I turn now to noise. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East, not for the first time, displayed his considerable knowledge and interest in the subject of noise. If there is one proposition to which both sides of the House would agree, it is that noise is a nuisance, that it is a nuisance which is increasing, that it is a nuisance which in a civilised society should be diminished.
One may approach the problem in many ways. One way is to separate people from noise, by having, for example, noise-free areas in factories, by insulation, for example, around airports, by having minimum noise take-off and landing techniques. We are making progress in all these. In particular, the Noise Advisory Council has recently provided us with an excellent report on minimising noise at airports through the sensible management of landing and take-off techniques and it has similarly provided an excellent report on possible amendments to our present legislation on noise.

243
But in the end the best answer to noise is to reduce it at source. Here, too, there is progress to report. For instance, the International Civil Aviation Organisation has already agreed to a noise certification scheme for all new types of subsonic airliners and Britain has been first to implement this scheme. The Aircraft Noise Certification Order, 1970, will therefore prevent the operation of future subsonic jet aircraft types in this country unless in general they are only about half as noisy as current types. So we are making progress in reducing noise at source.
I end with some general comments to put the matter into perspective. The first, about environmental pollution, is addressed to those who argue that somehow economic growth and pollution go hand in hand. I well understand the argument, but those who advance it should clearly understand what they are saying. It is suggested that if only our industrial development had stopped at an earlier stage, say, at the point where hand craftsmanship was highly developed, but before the steam engine was invented, man could be prosperous and happy, living in harmony with nature. This thesis, which is widely advanced, takes it for granted that somehow we could return to that bucolic state if only we had the will.
In fact, the sort of life which is envisaged by those idealists was possible only for a tiny minority, and even that minority depended on the existence of a much larger population living on the brink of starvation. The hard fact is—and surely it is nothing for us to be ashamed of—that it is only modern industry and modern technology and modern fertilisers, the very economic growth which so many affect to despise, which have made it possible for the mass of ordinary people to have anything like a decent standard of living. Therefore, I say that the only alternative to modern pesticides and complex industrial processes is not happy country-dwellers living in pleasant cottages, as Breughel painted them, but the sort of mass misery which we associate with the Bengal famines.
The second point of perspective, on which I end, is that, contrary to rumour and to popular headlines, we are not, at
244
least not in Britain, losing the battle to protect our environment. I do not say that we are winning it, but we are more than holding our own. Some pronouncements insist that it is already too late, that we are blindly heading into the environmental apocalypse. We do not dismiss these projections—we want to find out more about them—nor are we complacent. There are dangers and anxieties, and none of us has any excuse to sit back.
But the facts are that in Britain our air is generally cleaner and our rivers, in spite of last year's sewage workers' strike, are a good deal less polluted and our industrial effluent and toxic wastes, though very much greater in volume and vastly more complex in character, on the whole are less dangerous and causing less offence to our people than were any of those things 100 years ago, 50, or even 20 years ago. So we have by no means lost this battle. I think that we are more than holding our own.

POLICE ROAD SAFETY TEAMS
5.18 p.m.
Mr. Michael Stewart: I wish to raise a matter affecting the Vote for the Metropolitan Police. I do not pretend that it is a matter of world-shaking importance, or that it affects all mankind, but it is a matter of great concern to parents, children and teachers in the Greater London area.
It has always been one of the glories of the House that it could turn at a moment's notice from a matter of major world concern to all mankind to a matter of limited but pressing importance to a limited number of people. The House will be much the loser if we ever lose that reputation of being able to turn quickly to something which, even if it is of limited scope, is something with which at least the House can deal promptly and quickly.
May I describe what used to happen and what until very recently has been happening in Greater London schools? It was a regular practice that teams of police officers, a sergeant or constable, or both, visited London schools and talked to the children about the problems of road safety, about what it was sensible to

245
do if one wanted to keep alive in the rather alarming situation of the roads of Greater London.
The police officers gave sound practical advice on the immediate problem of road safety. But there was more to it than that. The fact that they were there, that they talked sense and that they gave good advice created a useful and friendly relationship between the young people and the police officers, the value of which went beyond the immediate problem of road safety.
In addition, there is a rather complex point which I, as someone who used to be a teacher, will do my best to explain. Those of us who have been teachers know very well that young people have an enormous respect for someone who they believe is doing a real job. When they are quite young, they are not sure whether teacher is doing a real job. When they are older and wiser, they understand that he is. Meanwhile, they have an enormous respect for someone who can arrest a criminal, drive a bus, repair a motor car, put the electric light in order or do any of the things which someone with a lack, not of wisdom but perhaps of sophistication which comes with age, believes is important.
The wise teacher does not resent this. He understands it. He understands that some of the young people under his control will have an enormous respect for the police officer. He will want to see the police officer acting in the school in cooperation with the teacher, helping the young people to understand how they should deal with the ugly problem of London's traffic, in particular, because if young people behave unwisely in some respects the penalty may be no more than that for a time they are unhappy and realise that they have done wrong, whereas if they behave unwisely in a traffic situation the penalty may be the irrevocable penalty of death. For this reason, the wise teacher was always glad to welcome the Metropolitan policeman if his presence would help young people to understand how they should handle traffic problems.
As I have said, this practice has operated for some time with good will and understanding between teacher, pupil and policeman. What is now proposed, as a result of the recent White Paper on
246
road safety, is that after the end of this year's summer term the problem shall be, as it is put, left to the local authority. This has a very attractive sound. It has the sound of local democracy. As far as I know, it may make sense outside Greater London. I do not want to pontificate from only limited emperience about what happens there, but there is a problem.
Outside Greater London the local authority has some control over the police service in greater or less degree. In Greater London we have had to accept, for a variety of reasons, that local authorities do not control the police service. It is run by the Metropolitan Police, responsible to the Home Office. We Londoners pay for it by a precept to somebody called the Receiver for the Metropolitan Police. He is a receiver in the real sense in that he receives and we just have to pay, and that is that. If we say for Greater London, "This is a matter for the local authority", it will be cut off completely from any help which the Metropolitan Police might give or might wish to give.
What used this to mean in a school in Greater London? Every school in Greater London—and there are quite a lot of schools—was visited at least once a year by a team from the Metropolitan Police to help children to understand how they must behave in the jungle of Greater London, not only if they wanted to keep alive, but in a proper way and with consideration for their fellow citizens.
I have taken opinions from many sources. I believe that the unquestionable view of teachers in London as a whole is that if police teams do not visit the schools, while they do not question the local authorities will do their best—and I am not advancing any criticism of the local authorities—there will be a reduction of reality, of sympathy and of understanding, that the advice to children about how to behave in traffic problems will fall in value and that the good will and understanding on other matters between young people and the police will suffer.
However grim the economic situation of the nation after a year of the present Government, I cannot believe that it is necessary to make this miserable, little economy. Cannot the Government think again about it?
5.27 p.m.
Mr. William Molloy: I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) for drawing the Minister's attention to this problem in Greater London. It is causing much concern to literally hundreds of thousands of parents in the Greater London area.
The Minister of State will be aware of the correspondence which has passed between us, and I am grateful to him for the concern which he has expressed. He will also be aware of the petitions from worried parents in my constituency, particularly in Northolt, which I have handed to him. I should like to explain how this situation is causing upset among people on the Northholt housing estates.
People are aided when applying for council houses if they have many children. Sometimes, because of a lack of foresight and not particularly good planning, we do silly things like building large housing estates on one side of the main road and all the schools on the other.
Parents are emotionally concerned in this—and I measure my words carefully—in that children have been slain and maimed on their way to school because they could not negotiate the roads properly. I ask the House to consider what that statement means. I ask everyone within range of my voice to ask how they would feel if one of their children had been killed or maimed in this way.
I come to the magnificent contribution which the police have made towards reducing accidents of this sort. The teams which have been visiting the schools in the London Borough of Ealing are well known. Since 1965 they have taught thousands of children. Their method is to talk to primary school children about how to cross the road and to teach them kerb drill. It may be said that parents or teachers could do this, but the effect on the children of being taught by a uniformed police officer is tremendous. The same teams of police officers teach older children how to control their bicycles and put them through certain tests. Just before the children leave school, they are given lectures on road safety codes and the essentials of driving a motor car. We must recognise that because this instruction is given by the
248
police much more cognisance is taken of it. If teachers or parents try to do it, the effect will not be the same.
From what I gather from the irate "mums" in my constituency, the police officers have done this job with great expertise and remarkable humour. They have immediately captured the confidence of the young people to whom they have been talking. Many people will say to a child, "If you don't behave yourself I'll send for a policeman." This is a wrong and distasteful attitude which the police have reversed. They have shown to young children in the Greater London area that the police officer is their friend, someone who is good to them and concerned about them, and not someone to fear. If only for this reason it would be a bad thing to dispense with these police teams.
The Minister of State will, no doubt, argue that the local authorities were given 12 months' warning of this impending disaster—that is what it is. I understand that 35 officers, sergeants and constables are involved. Will the Minister of State say this afternoon that during that 12 months another 35 policemen cannot be recruited to take on some of the jobs which the 35 officers in the teams have been doing?
The argument has been advanced that the 35 officers who have been doing this work are required to man certain accident black spots in Greater London. That is a commendable objective, but are we to understand that the black spots can be manned only by the police teams, and that during the intervening 12 months another 35 policemen cannot be recruited? I hope that the Minister will not accept that argument.
The Minister will enjoy the appreciation and praise of hundreds of thousands of parents throughout Greater London if he takes cognisance of what my right hon. Friend and I have said on behalf of our constituents. We have both been speaking on behalf of ordinary parents who are concerned that something which their children judge to be very valuable should be discontinued. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that that ignominious decision will be reversed, so that the police teams can continue with the worth-while work they have been doing.
5.36 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) has no need to apologise to the House for raising this subject. In view of the letters which I have received from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am under no illusion as to the importance which is attached to this subject, particularly by hon. Members representing Greater London constituencies. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) knows that I have received the petition which he presented, and I think I also owe him another letter in reply which I will send to him very shortly.
This subject was raised on an Adjournment debate on 5th February by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), but there is no reason why this subject should not be discussed again, and I hope during the debate to be able to give some reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Ealing, North. I will not cover again all the ground which I covered in the debate on 5th February.
There is general recognition of the valuable work which has been done by the road safety teams, and I join in the tributes which have been paid to them. I emphasise, as I did on 5th February, first, that there is no question of the police either in London or elsewhere being advised to cease to take an interest in road safety in schools and, secondly, that there is no question of any force refusing to assist with road safety instruction in schools so far as its resources allow it to do so.
The decision to disband the road safety teams as from July, 1971, was, as the hon. Member for Ealing, North said, announced by New Scotland Yard in August, 1970. This was a decision of the Commissioner of Police in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has no authority to interfere. The Assistant Commissioner (Traffic)——
Mr. Michael Stewart: Is that so? I know that the Commissioner of Police has to decide many matters but, in the very last resort, if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary thinks that a decision is wrong is there nothing he can do about it?
Mr. Sharples: He can discuss matters of this kind with the Commissioner of Police, but the way in which the Commissioner deploys his manpower is entirely within his operational discretion.
The Assistant Commissioner (Traffic) wrote to local authorities within the Metropolitan Police District informing them of that decision and giving the reasons for it. The letter explained that the teams had been set up in the first place because there were no local organisations capable of doing the job properly. The letter drew attention to the then Ministry of Transport's policy of local authorities appointing road safety officers to organise and co-ordinate all road safety activities in their areas. It went on to explain the manpower difficulties in the Metropolitan Police.
Finally, the letter promised co-operation in training successors to the teams and in providing local police support for road safety officers' plans. I should like to quote one sentence from that letter:
"The Commissioner hopes that by giving this notice so long in advance of the withdrawal date, your council will have plenty of time in which to plan and put into effect such alternative arrangements as they may consider desirable."
There is no doubt that one of the main reasons for the Commissioner's decision was the shortage of police manpower, and particularly of specialist officers trained on this kind of work. In fact, about 40 specialist officers were employed full-time in connection with the road safety teams. Whether this was the most effective contribution to road safety was a matter for decision by the Commissioner of Police. The Commissioner believes that there are other and more effective means of using this specialised manpower consisting of 40 police officers with great experience. He hopes to be able to achieve a significant reduction in the number of accidents in the streets by appointing specialist groups of officers to undertake activities designed to prevent high-risk situations developing.
The Commissioner's plan for this is to set up a tactical reserve of specialist officers who can then be deployed on carefully worked out projects based on accident intelligence. The manpower for this reserve will be found by using the men at present manning the road safety teams, and I am certain that the House

251
will accept that this is entirely an operational decision, which is within the discretion of the Commissioner of Police.
I should mention one other development which has occurred since the February debate. On 6th July this year my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries announced a number of measures which he proposed to take to reduce road casualties. One proposal was to place on the new county authorities a statutory road safety duty. This duty will include accident investigation and the taking of remedial measures.
I told the House in the debate on 5th February:
"Police personnel will remain available to train their successors—that is, the local police—and local police will be available to cooperate in future with local road safety officers in all local road safety activities including school visits. The best ways of doing this and of making the change as easy as possible are now under study."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th February, 1971; Vol. 810, c. 2170.]
I should like to give the House the results of that study by the Commissioner of Police. He has decided that the police presence in schools on road safety matters can best be maintained by officers of the divisional juvenile bureaux assisted by local police officers working under the general direction of the community liaison officers. The bureaux are already in frequent contact with schools on other matters. From the beginning of the new school term in September it will become their responsibility, as part of their continuing involvement with children, to assist in road safety instructions in schools. The job will be carried out by specially trained members of the local juvenile bureaux assisted by local police officers, who will have received special training in this work. The juvenile bureaux scheme was introduced 2½ years ago. I think the House will agree that its success has proved the value of closer police involvement with young people. The effect of this latest decision is to extend the influence of the juvenile bureaux into road safety matters.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman on reflection might well see positive advantages in this approach to the problem. It will create a special relationship between police and children in schools, and it may bring this out in a more
252
effective way than has been the case in the past, particularly since the local police are being brought into the picture. Each of the 24 juvenile bureaux in London will run a road safety group. Each group will probably consist of one sergeant, one police constable, and one woman police constable from the bureaux. They will be supplemented by local police officers who will liaise direct with schools as part of their ordinary duties. Training courses for the selected personnel are due to begin at the end of this month. Given good will, I can see no reason why the effectiveness of the Commissioner's plans for police participation in road safety instruction should not equal or even surpass that of the previous arrangements.
There is no dispute between us about the objectives we have in mind. We are all concerned about road safety, and particularly about the safety of school children, who are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, a most vulnerable group in this respect.
Mr. Molloy: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? What sort of a gap will there be between the termination of the present teams' activities and the new organisation? I am a little heartened by what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I am suspicious that we might not have had the proposals which the hon. Gentleman has announced if a considerable row had not been made by hon. Members in this House and the general public about these police teams.
Mr. Sharples: I do not know about the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, except that these proposals were put out by New Scotland Yard before I knew this debate was taking place. There will be no gap in the arrangements. This scheme will come into operation at the beginning of the new term in September.
The present Government, like their predecessors in office, have adopted a policy of local authority road safety officers co-ordinating local road safety activities. The police will continue to help as far as they can; and there is no question of police efforts being reduced as a result of Government policy.
It must remain the job of chief officers of police, in London and elsewhere, to make the best use they can of their man-

253
power and resources in the matter of road safety, as in all other matters for which they are responsible. I hope that when hon. Members have given the Commissioner's plans full consideration, as they are now in a position to do, they will agree that the Commissioner's endeavours deserve our full support.

ANGLO-MALTESE DEFENCE AGREEMENT
5.48 p.m.
Mr. Patrick Wall: Both sides of the House are united in their affection for Malta and the people of Malta. Malta has had a great place in European history and has twice saved western civilisation, first from the Turks and then from Adolf Hitler's hordes. When one thinks of Malta one thinks particularly of two things—first Malta's devotion to Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church; and secondly, the patriotism of the people of Malta to their island and also I believe to their Queen. I do not think there are many other places in the Commonwealth where one can ride in a bus and see as fixtures a crucifix and a picture of Her Majesty. This exemplifies the relationship between Malta and the Church on one side and this country on the other.
Therefore, when raising this topic, I appreciate that it goes wider than merely the defence agreement between Malta and Britain or Malta and N.A.T.O. It may affect the whole relationship between the Maltese people and the British people, the questions of the Sovereign, of our forces, and of civilian relations between the two peoples.
I appreciate that this is not the best time to raise this matter. My noble Friend the Minister of State has been to Malta with my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State, where they have been engaged in long discussions. I understand that negotiations are still proceeding. Normally, one would not wish to raise a matter like this when negotiations are still under way. However, I am sure that all concerned will appreciate that this is probably the last chance of raising the matter in the House until October. It is important for Malta and Britain to reach a clear-cut decision on this issue as soon as possible, and certainly well before October.
254
Having said that, as I pointed out in the House during Question time recently, I believe that Malta is still of considerable strategic importance to the West. Let us look at the cold war, such as it is, and compare it with the situation in the last war. In the last war the north coast of Africa was potentially friendly to the West. At present, most of the north coast of Africa is potentially hostile to the West. That means that this small island in the middle of the Mediterranean still occupies an important strategic place in the defence of Europe.
I agree, however, that the rôle of Malta has changed. In the last war, it was a major British base. The Mediterranean Fleet, with which I had the honour to serve before and during the war, was based on Malta. Now, it is different. Malta is of importance to the defence of Europe and, therefore, of importance to N.A.T.O. rather than to Britain, even though, as Britain is a member of N.A.T.O., it is our responsibility as well. So it is of importance to N.A.T.O. rather than to the Royal Navy and the defence of Europe rather than of Britain.
In both contexts, Malta is of value, but we must not close our eyes to the fact that there are alternatives. One of the important units based on Malta is our maritime reconnaissance air squadrons, one of the main objectives being the surveillance of Soviet submarines which proliferate in the Mediterranean today. However, those squadrons could be based elsewhere. A possibility is Sicily, bearing in mind that Italy is a member of N.A.T.O.
The dockyard is no longer used to repair naval ships, though it is of use to merchant ships. However, with the Suez Canal closed, the dockyard has been run down because Malta is no longer on the main trade route.
Communications is another vitally important matter, but again to N.A.T.O. rather than to Britain. However, the communications facilities could be duplicated in, say, Naples.
Then, of course, we use Malta for submarine exercises. However, from the point of view of training, these activities could be better carried on from Gibraltar, where there is deeper water adjacent to the port.

255
Clearly, from the British and N.A.T.O. viewpoint, redeployment of our forces from Malta is possible. I do not want that to happen. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government do not. Equally, I am sure that N.A.T.O. does not. But it could happen.
I turn to a matter which has caused me some concern. I refer to the recent attacks upon the Conservative Government which have been made in the island. There has been a great deal of talk of a master and servant relationship. I do not want to introduce party politics into this debate, since both sides of the House are united in their affection for the Maltese people. However, I want to remind the House of certain facts. It was a Conservative Government who gave Malta her independence. Admittedly we started the rundown which, unfortunately, was inevitable. But we had our defence and financial agreements to reduce the impact of the rundown on Malta. It was the financial agreement which gave Malta about £5 million a year to help her change her economy from a defence basis to a civilian basis.
That grant or loan was continued by the next Government, though there was a hiatus of about 18 months while right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite argued whether it should be a grant or a loan. When we returned to power, the aid was restored on the original basis of a 75 per cent. grant and a 25 per cent. loan.
Even by agreeing to renegotiate the present agreement, Her Majesty's Government are making concessions. I remind the House that on 19th February, 1969, I asked the then Minister of Defence:
"Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the defence treaty with Malta signed on independence, has been abrogated? Are the British Government, going to have talks with the Maltese to see what the defence position is?"
The reply of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was clear. He said:
"No, Sir. The defence agreement is in force until September, 1974."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th February, 1969; Vol. 778, c. 442.]
Clearly the Government of the day realised that there was no question of the Maltese Government abrogating the agreement. I suggest, therefore, that the
256
argument which has been put forward by certain people in Malta is not valid.
As one who has known Malta since the age of 15, and who has visited the island frequently, perhaps I might be allowed to try to look at the problem from the point of view of the Maltese people. They have a new Government. Any new Government must prove themselves. The new Prime Minister, Dom Mintoff, is a dynamic figure. Quite rightly from his point of view he has set out to gain the maximum assistance for his country that he can obtain. Clearly, he has a good case when he says that the £5 million agreed some years ago should be more today in view of the fall in the value of money. It has been said in some newspapers that £5 million then is equivalent to about £7 million today.
Perhaps I might remind the House or one of two important historic precedents. I carry the House back to our talks between 1955 and 1957, when last Dom Mintoff was Prime Minister of the George Cross island. There was a round-table conference in 1955. In 1956, this House agreed to the integration proposals put forward by Mr. Mintoff. The financial proposals which accompanied the integration proposals were discussed in 1957. Perhaps I might remind the House what those proposals were, since they provide a precedent for the argument taking place today.
The then British Government said that they would give a capital development grant of £25 million spread over five years and that they would subsidise recurrent expenditure to the tune of over £1 million a year for social services, that is to say, one-third to one-half of expenditure on education, one-third on health, and one-quarter on other social services. The Maltese Prime Minister then demanded more, much more. He asked for a £22½ million industrial fund and for £4½ million spread over five years to support a national assistance fund. Her Majesty's Government did not agree. Thereupon, the Maltese Prime Minister refused to recommend integration to the Maltese people.
In the following year, 1958, the Maltese Government, still under Mr. Mintoff, demanded £6 million for their budgetary support. Her Majesty's Government agreed to £5 million. The Maltese Government then budgeted for £7 million

257
and demanded that Her Majesty's Government should pay the deficit, the Maltese Prime Minister saying that he would resign when the money ran out in April, 1958. Her Majesty's Government did not agree to this proposal, and Mr. Mintoff carried out his threat by resigning in April, 1958. The Opposition refused to form a Government, and Mr. Mintoff was asked to stay on. Riots followed. Certain orders were given to the police by the Prime Minister. The Commissioner of Police appealed to the Governor. He was dismissed by the Prime Minister. The Governor upheld the Police Commissioner, the Prime Minister resigned, and the Governor took over the administration of the island.
I do not want to weary the House with the succeeding historical picture. There were a number of discussions and conferences, the Constitution was then suspended, and eventually Malta was given independence.
During this time Dom Mintoff made a fundamental change in policy. He dropped integration and said that his policy would be independence for Malta outside the Commonwealth. I am bringing these matters, which happened some years ago, to the attention of the House because I believe that history can repeat itself. There were ever-increasing financial demands. I believe that this could happen and perhaps is happening today. The Government of Malta put the Opposition in a difficult position. They were asking for more money from Britain, and the Opposition obviously could not say that they did not want it, because it was for the good of the Maltese people to have the money. I believe that the Opposition in Malta are in a similar difficulty today.
Then Dom Mintoff made a radical change of policy from integration to independence outside the Commonwealth. I believe that there may be a radical change of policy contemplated from being a Commonwealth country sharing the same Sovereign to quite different links, if any links are planned at all.
All who know Malta must be worried about the future. I believe that the Maltese themselves must be worried about the island's future, whatever political party they support.
As I see it, there are three possibilities. The first is brought out in today's
258
The Guardian which suggests that Dom Mintoff is asking for £20 million or more and that this should not be paid wholly by Britain but should be shared with N.A.T.O. Certainly there seems to be some good sense in any such arrangement, if it can be reached. But we want to know how much the cost will be. Obviously there must be a limit. It seems that going in one jump from £5 million to £20 million is a major step.
The more important issue in this respect is whether Mr. Mintoff will allow N.A.T.O. the use of the island that it has so far enjoyed. I believe that the important thing here is not so much the financial question as the use of Malta not only by Britain but by N.A.T.O. without interference by the Government of Malta. In other words, will N.A.T.O. be allowed to use the facilities that the British and their N.A.T.O. allies now enjoy and have enjoyed in the past? Is such an agreement possible? If so, how long will it last? Agreements with Malta have been terminated rapidly from time to time. What guarantees have we that any such agreement will be continued?
The second possibility put forward in certain newspapers, which I believe unlikely, is that, if agreement is not reached with Britain and N.A.T.O., Mr. Mintoff will change course and move directly towards the East and give the use of the dockyard or the facilities of the island to the Soviet Union and their growing Navy in the Mediterranean. I do not believe that this is likely, because Malta is a devoutly Catholic country and would not tolerate the use of the island by the Soviet Union. Nor could the Soviet Union provide the work which the West can provide for the dockyard or for the tourist industry and so on.
There is a third possibility, a halfway house. This was suggested in an article in the Daily Telegraph on 27th July. It is some form of alliance with Arab Socialism. I should like to quote one paragraph from that article, which says:
"Western observers cannot see the Libyan Revolutionary Council making a hard and fast agreement pledging large-scale aid over a 10 to 15-year period, while Maltese long-term economic planning could hardly depend on such a factor as Col. Gaddafi."
In other words, the Maltese delegation in Libya at the moment may be asking for financial aid. Can any financial aid from

259
Libya be given in the long term? I believe that pinning the future of Malta to such aid would be very dangerous indeed. Nor do I believe that an alliance between Arab Socialism and a neutral Malta in the world we know today fits in with Malta's historic past.
I hope that the Maltese people appreciate that, with the best will in the world, there is a price in cash and in strategic realities beyond which neither Britain nor N.A.T.O. can go. We want Malta to rettain her rightful place. I should like to see Malta as a member of N.A.T.O. She has a right to be a member of N.A.T.O. and I am sorry that she was not given that right in recent years. As I said, I hope that the Maltese realise that there is a limit beyond which no Government or alliance such as N.A.T.O. can go. I hope very much that Malta's links with Britain will not be cut, because I believe that such a cut would go much further than the defence agreement and would mean a final cut involving the Crown, the Services, and the people of Britain and of Malta. I believe that such a cut would not only be disastrous for Malta, European Christian Malta, but would not be desired either by Her Majesty's Government or by the British people.
I realise that my noble Friend will not be able to say very much today, but I hope that he will be able to give some explanation of what is going on and hold out some hope that we can reach an amicable agreement with the new Government of Malta which would not only maintain the defence agreement but the links between our two peoples, which I am sure everybody believes to be so important.
6.6 p.m.
Mr. George Wallace: I am sure that the House is grateful to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for raising this issue. I appreciate, as he does, that the Minister will have some difficulty in giving an adequate reply because of the negotiations which are going on.
My whole family and I have a tremendous regard for the Maltese. They are devoted to family life. I am sure that their standards would be a good example
260
to Britian's permissive society. We always admire close-knit family ties. Certainly the standard of their life and their friendliness is greatly appreciated.
I was on holiday with my wife in Malta during the General Election there. I hasten to add that I was minding my own business whilst there on holiday, although I was aware of the election because fly-posting is not illegal in Malta. I shall never know how they manage to attach posters to buildings of between 30 and 40 feet in height.
One of the background problems in Malta—this is where the immigration problem has raised a certain difficulty, and it was certainly the main feature behind the scenes in the election—was the need for housing for its own people. The previous Government, just before the election, rushed in a show house. I am sure that the House will understand that, at a period when magnificent new homes are being built for British people out there, the Maltese are to some extent denied the opportunity of good housing. There is a certain feeling about this matter, but fortunately it does not undermine the pro-British feeling.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice mentioned the Daily Telegraph. It may be bringing out some constructive ideas now, but during the election campaign its series of attacks on Dom Mintoff did not do much to help British understanding in Malta and may be a slight factor in the difficulties which we are now facing.
The House will know that the new Government of Malta has a majority of only one. It may be unique for a Government to have a majority of one, but the Prime Minister is carrying out his election promises. I had the manifesto of the Malta Labour Party. Unfortunately, it is in Maltese and I do not understand it. However, I have an English translation, thanks to the Malta News. The Prime Minister, in his election manifesto, said:
"(1) The people of Malta and Gozo must put aside corruption and live honestly.
(2) Every citizen must do his part so that productivity increases. When the burden is fairly distributed, nobody will suffer."
Then the manifesto deals with the defence problem in this way:
"It is the duty of the Government to make every effort so that funds Malta gets from

261
foreign nations for serving them in the military field increase and that they will suffice for the needs of the nation. The aim has to be that within a short time we can stand on our feet economically without the need of exploiting our strategic position in the Mediterranean. In this way only can Malta attain the independence which all other countries have. Otherwise Malta will once again become a servant and an instrument of war in the hands of other countries."
Point 7 in the manifesto deals with the Defence Treaty:
"The Defence Treaty will be reviewed and it must be made clear that the funds coming from the British Government are not charity but as payment for the facilities Malta is according to Britain. Payment has to be adequate for the needs of our country and Britain cannot automatically pass on these facilities to other Powers."
That is obviously a reference to N.A.T.O.
"It will also be ascertained that the Defence Treaty will protect better jobs of Service Department employees, and that those sacked will have to be adequately compensated and alternative employment found for them."
That was the manifesto during the General Election. The Prime Minister of Malta is now carrying it out. The British Government must have been aware that if Dom Mintoff became Prime Minister, as he was such a dynamic character, he would go in a headstrong manner—majority of one or not—to carry out what he had said during the election. The talking point in Malta has been the difference between one Prime Minister and the other—one a very nice gentleman who was a little slow in reaching decisions, the other a gentleman who rushes in and makes decisions.
Some people still think back to the old days. However, Malta is independent. I repeat that there is still a tremendous pro-British feeling. The target of the present Prime Minister can be summarised as being to raise the dignity of life of the Maltese people. We must recognise this in our negotiations. I know that he is not exactly easy to get on with. In 1965 I went to Malta with a C.P.A. delegation. I believe that that was the first British delegation to Malta. At that time the present Prime Minister had a terrific chip on his shoulder in connection with the Church.
We tried to establish contact with him. In the end the message reached us, "If you want to see me come to see me at my house. I will not come to you". We went. We sat down to discuss various
262
things. We wanted to be helpful and friendly. All that Dom Mintoff kept saying was, "You have taken your Army and your Navy out. This is your problem. You give us the solution". He was suffering then because he felt that by withdrawing our Navy we had undermined the standard of life of his people.
The only way in which I was fortunate enough to be able to make contact with him and to get some constructive proposal when I referred to what I called Malta's human exports—the migrants. They were trained at a wonderful polytechnic, at a new university, and at an old university which I believe is even more ancient than Oxford. The end product is an aircraft to Australia.
That got him going, because at that time British aid in the main took the form of setting up textile factories to employ cheap women labour. There is still cheap women labour in Malta. My wife and I visited a shoe factory where girls were producing hand-made shoes for £2–£3 a week for a six-day week.
There seems to be some confusion about the start of the present negotiations. I have had some explanations from the Malta Office of Information. It seems as if we rushed out there before arrangements were made for a proper set of negotiations.
I agree to a great extent with the hon. Gentleman on the question of N.A.T.O. Today the Press carries a report of the effect that the British Government are to approach N.A.T.O with a view to N.A.T.O. sharing some of the cost of the presence of the island. Anyone who goes to Floriana and looks across from the hotel there can see N.A.T.O.'s building flaunting flags, and so on: the building is visible from many parts of the island. If only Britain is making a contribution and N.A.T.O. is not, it is common sense for us to try to persuade N.A.T.O. to make a contribution.
It is just for the Maltese to say that the money we have paid and are paying has changed in value and that there is a case for stepping it up. I do not know what the Navy can do. There is little change in the set up of the dockyard. I hope that it will work. It is a shame that so many people are being kept idle and are being paid for being idle when this tremendous project and all the skilled

263
people could be used. Could not we get work, particularly from the Navy, into the dockyard?
I repeat that I have a tremendous regard for the Maltese. They are so kind, so gentle, so downright honest as to the great majority of them, and they have such a good moral standard of life, that we should do better for them. We should go out with good feeling and good will seeking to solve this difficult problem. Very shortly the Maltese Parliament will meet. If our negotiators can swallow a little of Dom Mintoffs acid approach I believe that we can get places.
It is not our business as back bench Members to get involved. As I said, it was a tremendous temptation during the General Election out there, but I kept clear of it. I came back with a souvenir key chain carrying a picture of Dom Mintoff. The people said to me with pride—I am sure that the Government will not apreciate this— "Mr. Wallace, here is our leader doing a Harold Wilson". He was smoking a pipe. I do not think that Dom Mintoff will have time to write his memoirs for some time to come.
Mr. William Hamling: He will not get as much money, either.
Mr. Wallace: I agree with what my hon. Friend said, but the Maltese system of taxation is a little different. During the General Election the Government party pledged themselves to abolish income tax. Dom Mintoff got elected because he promised to introduce P.A.Y.E.
There is a strong pro-Malta Lobby on both sides of the House. I appeal to the Government to do their best, to ignore one or two little kicks, and to tell the Daily Telegraph to behave itself, which is what it should have done during the General Election out there. The Daily Telegraph did not help. However, I hope that it will not blacklist me tomorrow.

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

1. Investment and Building Grants Act 1971.

2. Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1971.

3. Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act 1971.

4. Land Registration and Land Charges Act 1971.

5. Law Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Act 1971.

6. Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

7. Pool Competitions Act 1971.

8. Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971.

9. Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971.

10. Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971.

11. Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act 1971.

12. Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971.

13. Anguilla Act 1971.

14. Diplomatic and other Privileges Act 1971.

15. Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Act 1971.

16. Friendly Societies Act 1971.

17. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1971.

18. Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Act 1971.

19. Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1971.

20. London Transport Act 1971.

21. Kesteven County Council Act 1971.

22. Bradford Corporation Act 1971.

23. Bristol Corporation Act 1971.

24. Teesside Corporation (General Powers) (No. 2) Act 1971.

25. British Railways Act 1971.

26. Hertfordshire County Council Act 1971.

27. Humber Bridge Act 1971.

28. Greater London Council (Money) Act 1971.

265

29. D. & J. Fowler Limited and Associated Company Act 1971.

30. Stockport Corporation Act 1971.

31. Haringey Corporation Act 1971.

32. East Sussex County Council (Newhaven Bridge) Act 1971.

33. Eton Rural District Council Act 1971.

34. Cornwall County Council Act 1971.

35. Bristol Corporation (West Dock) Act 1971.

36. East Suffolk County Council Act 1971.

37. Mersey Docks and Harbour Act 1971.

38. Trent River Authority (General Powers) Act 1971.

ANGLO-MALTESE DEFENCE AGREEMENT
6.21 p.m.
The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) always speaks with considerable authority on defence matters, and I know that the House and people outside attach considerable weight to his arguments. On this occasion, though, he also speaks from a longstanding knowledge of the area concerned and a longstanding affection for Malta and her people. I believe that both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Wallace) showed the deep regard and warm affection that we have both for the country and for the people of Malta. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for this opportunity to bring the House up to date on the progress of our discussions with the Prime Minister of Malta on the subject of the Anglo-Maltese Defence Agreement.
It may also help the House if I begin by reminding hon. Members of our position in Malta. Under the 1964 Defence Agreement, we were given the right to station armed forces and associated British personnel in Malta in peace and in war, and to use facilities there not only for United Kingdom defence purposes but also in support of our international and Commonwealth obligations.
266
Except under arrangements between the two Governments, no forces other than the forces of Malta and the United Kingdom could be stationed in Malta or permitted to use harbour, dockyard, airfield, staging or communication facilities in Malta. The Agreement also made it clear that the Government of Malta could accord rights and facilities to the forces of any party to the North Atlantic Treaty.
In this way, we have been able in the past to ensure firstly that we can make full use of the facilities we retain in Malta for our own and for N.A.T.O. purposes—and at the same time ensure that unfriendly forces are not able to make any use of the Island.
The strategic value of Malta rests largely on its geographic situation in the centre of the Mediterranean, in the Sicilian Narrows. However, as a simple statement of fact, the military tasks which we carry out on the island could be carried out, as my hon. Friend indicated, from other places.
The main facilities which we have kept in Malta under the 1964 Agreement are the airfield at Luqa, harbour facilities and a land presence. The airfield is run on a joint user basis, with the R.A.F. providing much of the essential air traffic control and airfield service for civil aviation purposes. In addition the R.A.F. stations two squadrons of reconnaissance aircraft at Luqa and makes use of the airfield for training and trooping purposes. It also has the use of a subsidiary airfield at Hal Far.
We also maintain sufficient harbour facilities in Malta to be able to support visits by a small number of ships and to carry out dockyard-assisted maintenance as necessary. We also station an infantry battalion in Malta. At present, it is the 1st Battalion, the Devonshire and Dorset Regiment, together with supporting units and services. As this House is already aware, the unit was due to be replaced by 41 Commando Group but, at Mr. Mintoff's request, we have agreed to hold up this replacement for the time being.
Under the terms of the 1964 Financial Agreement, Her Majesty's Government made available to the Government of Malta the sum of £50 million
"for the diversification and development of the economy of Malta"

267
and a further £1 million for the restoration of historic buildings and works in Malta. These aid payments are, as my hon. Friend made clear, being made on the basis of 75 per cent. grant and 25 per cent. loan and there now remains to be paid out the sum of £9·4 million in the remaining 2½ years of the 1964 Financial Agreement. These moneys can be used to meet the social needs which were so eloquently expressed by the hon. Member for Norwich, North and which certainly exist in the island of Malta.
The direct payment of aid, however, represents only a small part of the United Kingdom contribution to the economy of Malta. The stationing of some 3,500 Servicemen, together with their families, on the island provides direct employment for about 5,000 Maltese civilians and, indirectly, provides work for a further 1,400. We also employ some 1,100 Maltese uniformed personel. Over and above the direct payment of aid, our local defence expenditure, including personal spending, in Malta for 1971–72 will, if present arrangements continue, be £12·5 million. The United Kingdom also contributes to the Malta economy through tourism and from the personal expenditure and capital investment of many United Kingdom settlers on the island.
This then, in summary form, is the situation as it has been till recently in Malta.
As the House is already aware, one of the first actions of the new Prime Minister was to issue a public statement to the effect that the 1964 Defence Agreement with Britain was no longer in being; he also made it clear that he wished to have consultations with Her Majesty's Government about a new agreement to replace the Defence and Financial Agreements.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence was due to travel to Valletta on 14th July to discuss with Mr. Mintoff his ideas for modification of the existing Agreements and to find out whether it was possible to negotiate fresh arrangements of a kind which we could recommend to the British Government for approval. The House knows that this visit was cancelled at the last minute, in the light of a message from Mr. Mintoff but, after a further message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Mr. Mintoff agreed that discussions should be
268
held in Malta in an honest and genuine attempt to reach agreement.
My right hon. Friend and I went to Valletta last week to listen to Mr. Mintoff's proposals and to discuss them with him. On our side, we made it quite clear to him that the 1964 Defence and Financial Agreements are, in our view, still valid. As was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice, Members of both the previous Government and the present Government are clear in their view that those Agreements have not been abrogated.
We also made it clear that the facilities which we currently enjoy in Malta under the 1964 Defence Agreement and the terms on which we can make use of them are basically satisfactory to us.
But, while we consider that the Defence and Financial Agreements are still valid, we said that we were, of course, prepared to consider any proposals which the Malta Government wished to put to us.
Mr. Mintoff, for his part, proposed a radical revision of the 1964 Agreements under which Britain would have to pay a higher price for defence facilities, with more restricted conditions of use, for example, with regard to the availability of facilities in Malta for the N.A.T.O. Alliance.
The House will understand that it would be wrong for me to go into greater detail while these proposals are being considered. I can, however, say that the difference between our two approaches is very wide indeed. As things stand, it will prove very difficult to reach a settlement.
We have made clear to the Malta Government that we would not wish to maintain troops in Malta against their wishes. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, they are a sovereign nation, and we have made quite clear that we would not wish to maintain troops in Malta against the wishes of the Malta Government. Equally, we felt bound to explain, lest there should be any misunderstanding, that the strategic value of Malta is not so great that we could not reprovide these facilities elsewhere.
Nevertheless, we would rather remain in Malta than break the links which have united our countries for so long. A tour

269
of duty in that lovely island is greatly appreciated by our Forces, and for a long time there has been a most happy and friendly relationship between our two peoples and between all those Service men who have served in Malta and the friendly and hospitable people of Malta themselves. We have no wish to see these links broken because we already have good defence facilities on the island. We would much like to have an agreement with the Malta Government, but, clearly, there is a balance which has to be struck between the terms and conditions for our use of defence facilities on the island and the value which we can put on the facilities.
I cannot at this stage forecast the outcome of our consideration of Mr. Mintoff's proposals. Clearly, it will be necessary to consider them in detail, not only at home but also with our N.A.T.O. allies who share our interest in this matter. The House should be aware that we are keeping N.A.T.O. full informed of developments in Malta.
At the time when we decided to hold up for the time being the replacement of the 1st Devon and Dorsets by 41 Commando, there was an advance party of the Commando in Malta. We have now instructed the advance party to return to the United Kingdom, where it will rejoin its parent unit at a camp near Tavistock. The whole unit will deploy to the Mediterranean on an exercise in September. We have decided, also, to allow the families of the 1st Devon and Dorsets to return to the United Kingdom in advance of the units if they wish to do so.
I am sure that the House will not expect me to be drawn into further detail on Mr. Mintoff's proposals, and I certainly should not wish to comment on the detailed conditions which he is seeking to impose, or on the amount of money which he has requested, except to say that it is a very high figure indeed.
Mr. Wall: Could my noble Friend give some idea of when he thinks the negotiations will reach finality? Is it likely to be before the date of the first sitting of the Malta Parliament?
Lord Balniel: It is extraordinarily difficult for me, more particularly in view of the wide difference of opinion and differ-
270
ence of approach which exists, to give any indication of when these negotiations can reach finality. However, we have very much in mind the point made by my hon. Friend, that the Malta Parliament will reassemble towards the end of August, and we are anxious to study the proposals as quickly as we can.
Dr. David Owen: The House understands the Minister's difficulty in giving any great detail, but could he give some indication of the Government's attitude to the question of principle whether N.A.T.O. or the members of N.A.T.O. should make a financial contribution in any of the pending negotiations, or does he feel that this must remain a purely bilateral agreement between Malta and the United Kingdom?
Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman asks a question of great importance. We feel that the strategic value is primarily to N.A.T.O. itself, and, therefore, it seems to us reasonable that we should consult our N.A.T.O. allies, keeping them closely informed of the proposals which have been put to us. We are in the process of such consultations with our N.A.T.O. allies.
Dr. Owen: I do not want to press the Minister, but the question of principle is one of financial contribution. I think that the whole House will accept that N.A.T.O. is seriously involved in this issue, but there has been some speculation in the Press—for example, in The Guardian today—about the Government's attitude towards an actual financial contribution coming from N.A.T.O. countries.
Lord Balniel: We should certainly not object to a financial contribution coming from N.A.T.O. There is no difficulty of principle so far as we are concerned in such a proposal.
To sum up briefly, the future of the Anglo-Maltese Defence and Financial Agreements raises issues of importance not only to the United Kingdom but to her allies, to the new Government of Malta and to the Maltese people. I think that it is generally agreed by the House that we should study these problems carefully. However, I must regretfully underline the fact that, at present, the two sides to the discussion are very far apart and that there is a long way to go before we shall be able to see whether a new

271
agreement is a possibility. I am sure that the House will understand that I would not wish to elaborate further while the negotiations are proceeding.

FURTHER EDUCATION
6.38 p.m.
Mr. William Hamling: I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State is here with us to engage with me in what I hope will be a non-partisan semi-professional argument or discussion about further education. As he and the House know, I come to this subject from a professional standpoint.
It is a long time since the House had an opportunity of having the Minister with us to give an indication of the Government's policy in regard to further education. By "further education" I do not in this context mean university education, and I hope that the Minister has had some indication of the limits within which my remarks will be kept on this occasion. I regard university education as a rather special field, and I wish to discuss that form of further education which is sometimes loosely called technical education. I say "loosely" because the students who go to these colleges are not all technical students.
A great many of the colleges in this branch of education have to do with the sort of education which one associates with those people who left school early and who are, as it were, trying in later years to gain the sort of general education which they missed in their ordinary school lives. The term "further education" covers a multitude of courses at evening institutes. It covers a great variety of subjects and activities. A great many of the students are full-time, some doing advanced work, some doing work to a university standard, and some doing work which can only be described as rather informal from an education point of view, some doing work, perhaps, not to a very high academic standard but none the less very useful from the point of view of the students and of the country as a whole.
Much of what I have to say will be couched in the form of questions in an attempt to get the Minister to say what the Government's policy is in relation to
272
certain matters. One thing I must ask at once is whether the Government intend to give priority to the polytechnics, which I regard as having a very specialised function in further education, perhaps to the detriment or to the exclusion or to the neglect of some other very important aspects.
For a long time a great many people have felt that further education was a sort of poor relation to the universities, particularly in regard to advanced work, and some of them feel that as the polytechnics are, as it were, separated from the rest of further education they may become another priority section like the universities, and that other spheres of activity in further education will be left out in the cold.
For example, how far does the Department think that other colleges outside the polytechnics will be able to do advanced work of a high academic standard? I think of many colleges where some of the students are doing very advanced work leading to professional diplomas or qualifications of one sort or another. Is it envisaged that advanced work of this sort in colleges outside polytechnics will not be encouraged?
Another very important question is how much further education there will be, and how much the Government think we as a nation can afford. In the White Paper on Public Expenditure some projections have been made of expenditure in this direction. This is the reference I want to make to universities, but it is only a comparative and passing reference. For universities, the projected current expenditure based on the provisional outturn was £251·7 million in 1969–70 and in 1974–75 it was £355 million—an increase of over £100 million. In 1969–70, capital expenditure based on provisional outturn was £75 million odd, and the estimated expenditure in 1974–75 is £92 million.
In further education, however, current expenditure for 1969–70 was £249·7 million, and the estimated figure for 1974–75 is £286 million—an increase of only £36 million. Is this a realistic estimate and a realistic projection? In capital expenditure, so far from their being an increase, there is a decrease. The figure for 1969–70 based on provisional outturn was £54·3 million, and the estimate for 1974–75 is £52 million.

273
I do not know what estimate the Treasury made of costs in this sphere—movement of prices and movement of wages in industries concerned in capital expenditure—but it seems to me that this is a gross under-estimation of the capital expenditure which will be needed, especially bearing in mind that the White Paper says that further education student numbers, full-time equivalent, will rise by 10 per cent. by 1972–73, and then ease off for two years, when the 15-year-olds stay at school after the leaving age is raised instead of moving to further education. In the light of the considerable extension that has taken place in the last 10 years, this forecasting of numbers is not very realistic.
I want to give the House some idea of the tremendous expansion there has been in further educations since 1959–60. In 1959–60, full-time students numbered 98,000, by 1964–65 the number had risen to 167,000, and by 1968–69 it had gone up to 214,000. The figures more than doubled in eleven years—very roughly, I suppose, one can say that they have doubled in ten years. This is a considerable expansion in full-time further education, and anyone with any connection with this form of education knows that more and more students are becoming full-time instead of part-time students, with the demands that this makes on staffing, accommodation, laboratory work, and other things. That being so, to talk of only a limited expansion in the next five years is an underestimate.
There has been quite a dramatic expansion in sandwich courses—perhaps to the detriment of day release, but it is none the worse for that. Anyone connected with technical colleges or further education and day release will welcome such expansion. In 1959–60 there were 10,000 students taking these courses, and the figure for 1968–69 was 29,600—an expansion of nearly 200 per cent. The expansion in part-time day release is shown by the fact that in 1959–60 there were 452,000 such students, and about 749,000 in 1968–69. Such expansion is quite dramatic, and indicates the thirst for education amongst a group of young people in our society whom the universities have not taken care of. Bearing in mind the figures I have quoted, one can only envisage even further expansion in the next few years.
274
In 1964–65, 138,000 students took advanced courses, and that figure rose by 50,000 during the following four years. These are all dramatic increases, and illustrates the fact that if we are to take further education seriously the Government estimates of projected expenditure ought to be re-examined.
Another aspect of further education is day release. In 1964, the Henniker-Heaton Report talked about the need for doubling the number of students on day release: in fact, the numbers have not doubled but have diminished. This is partly due to the expansion of full time courses, partly due to the expansion of sandwich courses, block release, and the like, but it seems that the numbers of students on day release have not kept up with our expectations of five years ago. What is the Minister's view of the next couple of years, particularly bearing in mind unemployment today and reports that employers are reducing the numbers of apprentices they are taking on? It appears that in many colleges next September the intake of students for day release will be down by upwards of 25 per cent., and in some cases by much more.
On top of that we have the impact of the raising of the school-leaving age. We may well ask where in four or five years' time we are to get the skilled apprentices normally associated with day release.
Another aspect of the figures that I want to ask the Minister about is the discrimination against women and girls. Perhaps "discrimination" is the wrong word, but certainly there are disparities. For example, in 1969, 198,000 boys under 18 were on day release and only 54,000 girls. That is a very sad contrast. But the contrast is even sadder in some other figures. In national colleges there were 1,177 men students and only nine women students. In polytechnic full-time courses there were 7,195 men students and only 3,196 women students. In regional colleges, there were 10,342 full-time men students compared with only 3,444 women students. Those figures are far worse than the figure for universities, and we know that even in universities for every woman student there are probably two men students. Here it would appear

275
that the disparity is even worse. What is in the Minister's mind for trying to persuade parents, or teachers, themselves to persuade girls to take advantage of the opportunities in colleges of further education and technical colleges? In advance courses the figures are not quite so bad—36,900 men students compared with 17,800 women. That includes art colleges, where the comparisons are by no means as startling.
This is a subject about which I feel very strongly. We know very well that the maintained grammar schools provide as many places for girls as for boys, yet it seems that the girl products of the maintained grammar schools do not go to universities in anything like the number that boys do, and that they do not go to further education, perhaps, in quite the same way for advanced courses. Far fewer girls leave with comparable A levels. There must be in our society a pool of ability amongst girls in particular which is not being tapped in further education, and still less in universities.
I now turn to the circular on capital programmes from the Department of the Environment, Circular 2/70, with which I am sure the Minister will be familiar. It is very important from the point of view of further education in particular. What consultations take place between the Treasury, the Department of the Environment and the hon. Gentleman's Department on such matters? One large college in the North has made this statement:
"The Management Committee have decided that in view of the restriction on capital spending imposed upon authorities by the Department of the Environment Circular 2/70, it will not be possible to include within the local capital allocation the professional fees associated with the C.F.E. stage 2 building proposals. The Authority will therefore not be able to begin building during the financial year 1970–71, and it will be necessary to ask the D.E.S. to delete the programme from the 1970–71 building programme."
The annexe to the circular says that projects in major building programmes for schools, further education establishments and so on are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, but that professional fees, salaries, dwellings for teachers or caretakers, for example, purchases of land for existing buildings, vehicles, furniture and equipment, are exculded from those
276
considerations. They are very relevant to further education. Those excluded sectors must be met out of the total sum for locally determined schemes.
I am a member of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions, which was not provided with a copy and was not consulted by the Department of the Environment. Perhaps the A.T.T.I. is not so important, but was the Association of Education Committees consulted? If so, what was its reaction? These are most important matters. The Government will at some stage be looking at the whole field of expenditure of local authorities.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): I am anxious to follow the hon. Gentleman carefully, though I think that some of what he is saying will be outside my Ministerial responsibility, and he will know, with his experience, that I must be careful. I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that a result of Circular 2/70 from the Department of the Environment would be that an education project which he did not identify—I make no complaint of that, and do not ask him to identify it—could not start building in the financial year 1970–71. Is that right?
Mr. Handing: I shall give this document to the Minister later. I am not anxious to make any partisan points, and I want to be helpful. The hon. Gentleman will find the statement in Technical Education for March 1971. When I make the document available to him he can check it. But I think that it is quite firm. I understand that the authority concerned is Newcastle.
The other relevant question is the impact of the reorganisation of local government. This was something over which we had battles in London some time ago, but happily, from our point of view, we kept London education intact and united.
There was a debate on the matter at the annual conference of the A.T.T.I. Strong words have been used, particularly in the West Riding of Yorkshire, because we may have black areas in education, particularly further education. One of the things that have struck me and other people is that in a small area with a population of perhaps 150,000 or 200,000,

277
a county area or sub-division of a county area, there may be one large technical college.
Such a college can constitute a heavy burden on the local rates. There may well be a temptation for short-sighted councillors, when considering the rate burden annually, to look at the massive expenditure of the college and say, "We must hold down the rates this year. We have so many calls upon our finances—let us take half a million off the college because it happens to be the biggest single spender in the whole area." I know that this is not the direct concern of the hon. Gentleman, but it is a matter on which we in education—and I mean both of us, speaking, as it were, across the Floor—should make representations to the Minister concerned, because this is one of the most powerful considerations to bear in mind when discussing the reorganisation of local government.
It is not as though we were dealing simply with primary schools or secondary schools. Further education covers a vast range. The college where I taught before coming here drew students from as far afield as Reading in the west—indeed, from as far west as Basingstoke—from Luton and even further north, from Brighton on the south coast, and from Southend in the east. We drew our students from a very wide area. To try and disentangle the finances and fees for students from such a widely scattered area is extremely difficult.
Then there is the question of administration. Should we expect a college of this sort to be governed by one small local area when so many of the students are drawn from other areas? Is there a local identity here? These are important considerations.
There is also the problem of paternalism by the governing bodies. Happily, the Guildford situation has been resolved, and I am glad of it. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good offices there. It has been very successfully dealt with. It was an unhappy experience and we are glad to see the back of it. But there may be other Guildfords. There may be other cases where the independence of the teachers may be threatened. A technical college with a vast number of students—in my college we had some 6,000 or 7,000—drawn from a very wide area, and a large
278
staff also drawn from an equally wide area, with members holding very high academic qualifications—indeed, many of them supreme in their subjects nationally let alone locally—may be subject perhaps to the administration of local councillors. I intend no disrespect to local councillors, but can one really expect them to be competent to judge the professional standards of such a college or its academic standards? I think it is asking too much of some of these local authorities to expect them to administer satisfactorily colleges of this sort.
Then there is the question of modern attitudes towards staff and students. Happily, in my college we got over the question of representation without fuss or bother. We did it at local level. We did not call in the authority. We settled it between ourselves. I was one of the union representatives, and together the chairman and I sorted the matter out with the principal with no fuss. That is the sort of situation we have had in London. In London, there has been no friction on these things. In some places there may be friction, however, and I often think that where one gets what I would describe as "parish pump politics" one may get such friction.
Then there is the attitude to the students. But here, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I am trespassing on your good nature, so I will not go into detail. I can well understand, however, that student attitudes are a very important factor in the future administration of these colleges.
Finally, there is the question of salaries and conditions of service. I know that a salary claim is in and I shall say nothing about that, because this is neither the time nor the place. I will only say that it has been in a long time and that, like all things, the mills of Burham grind slowly——
Mr. Alec Jones: And too small.
Mr. Handing: —and they do grind too small sometimes. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), who is from another branch of the profession, speaks truly. I hope that an answer on the claim will be forthcoming soon and that is all I shall say about it.

279
I want to refer to local variations. Unlike other sectors of Burham, with which I have had experience going back over 30 years, technical education provides all sorts of local variations because of the policies of different authorities on conditions of service, on which there is as yet no national agreement. In my last college, I was a lecturer Grade B. I have always regarded London as the best education authority in the country and that means probably in the world. I say that not as a Londoner but as an immigrant to London. It has one of the happiest of staff relationships. The Authority has always been generous to its teachers, both in ordinary schools and in further education. It has been understanding and tolerant. Not all authorities are as good as that. London has always been very generous in its allocation of lecturers, Grade B, senior lecturers, and so on. Other authorities have not always been as generous. Certainly, when it comes to things like class contact hours, London has been much more generous than other authorities. I ask the Minister to have a look at this and see what can be done to try and get some uniformity. By that I do not mean scaling things down, as it were, in London, but bringing the rest of the country up to the high standards enjoyed in London.
In London, 19 or 20 class contact hours is the norm. I wonder what it is in other parts of the country. In so many authorities, lecturers and teachers are expected to be in attendance at college throughout the college day, whether they are taking a class or not. Some of the authorities seem to exercise a quite disproportionate authoritarian attitude in this respect towards lecturers who, after all, are people with very high professional standards. In addition, holiday entitlement and leave of absence are all matters about which staff members also feel very strongly, and I would like to know how much consultation the Department encourages with local teacher associations. We have been very fortunate in London, but other parts of the country have not been so fortunate. There are one or two dangerous signs that conditions may worsen. The college year is normally 36 to 38 weeks, but, with the impact of industrial training there may be inroads into holidays and so on, so that
280
in a few years the college year may look quite different. I wonder what the Department thinks about this and what it has in mind in this respect for the future
I have put my questions to the Under-Secretary in an entirely non-partisan fashion. I approach this subject with a professional and educational point of view. Throughout, there has been no sort of party attitude on this issue. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to come to our annual conference this year, and that was much appreciated. What struck us was that he was not only interested in making a speech, but was eager to stay and listen to the speeches of delegates. I thank him for that and for his interest in our work in this respect.
7.11 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) started his elegant little speech by saying that he hoped that this would be a semi-professional discussion. I am grateful to him for saying that, but I think that it will so turn out that he will be the professional and I shall be the semi. But I shall do my best to answer.
I have a large sheaf of notes about what he has been saying and I will do my best to answer as fully as I may as many of his comments as possible, but I know that he will acquit me of discourtesy if there are one or two matters which I openly skirt round. With his considerable experience, he knows the limitations of answerability in certain of these matters, and I must carefully observe the proprieties in that regard.
He was good enough to start with a kindly reference to my attendance at the conference in Nottingham of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions of which he is a distinguished member. No Minister could have had a more kindly welcome. I learnt a great deal from the occasion, which is why I went. I have something of a horror of Ministerial visits which are an Olympian descent from on high, the delivery of a splendid message, followed by a swift departure. I wanted to stay longer, and I was grateful that that was made possible for me. Sometimes on these occasions one learns a tremendous amount from the off-duty as well as the on-duty moments.

281
I was already aware, but it was brought home to me even more at the conference and it has been forcefully underlined by the hon. Gentleman tonight, of the anxiety in some professional circles that the future pattern of further education might be such as to make for an overwhelming concentration on the polytechnics at the expense of other institutions: I noted down the hon. Gentleman's phrase—the fear that priority would be given to the polytechnics to the exclusion or neglect of the other institutions.
I want to make it clear that the present Government, following the decisions of their predecessors, which in turn were a logical extension of the policies of the 'fifties, attach the greatest importance to the polytechnics and the increasing concentration of advanced work in those remarkable institutions. I yield to nobody in my regard for them and my admiration for their work. Many young people now contemplating doing degree work at a university or polytechnic would be well advised to consider the polytechnic as the place where they might well have the most rewarding course. But, that said, I make it perfectly clear that this is not to be, in the hon. Gentleman's phrase, to the exclusion or neglect of other institutions.
I believe that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman by reference to the figures. He will know that the list of further education major and minor projects authorised to start in 1971–72 notified to the L.E.A's last autumn totalled £27·8 million, which allows for the recently announced 20 per cent. increase in cost limits. A substantial but still minority proportion was for the polytechnics. For the following year, there is an admittedly substantial programme for the polytechnics, £8·8 million, but this is still only a proportion of the whole. It is important to say that, because it would be unfortunate if the whole weight of the Government effort, as exemplified by the F.E. major projects, were thought to be put into the polytechnic programme. The figures speak for themselves in the current year and for the year beginning 1972–73. We have yet to announce the preliminary list from which the 1973–74 starts will be drawn.
I am therefore happy to give the assurance in the terms for which the hon.
282
Gentleman asked for it, and I make it clear that the concentration process, which in any case is gradual, following precisely from the 1966 White Paper and all that, about which the hon. Gentleman knows more than I, is not to the exclusion of other projects; and that the Government attach great importance, as is shown by their building programmes, to the remainder of further education.
The subject of projected expenditure was raised at Nottingham. The hon. Gentleman may not have had the opportunity of appreciating that the figures in the White Paper, to which he properly referred, have to be read against the background of the raising of the school-leaving age, which is relevant, as he and I would agree. If he studies the figures—and I am grateful to him for the way in which he put them—he will see that further education pro rata gets a fair share of the growth forecast. In any event, it is a total figure that the hon. Member fairly quoted. This covers some of the further education sectors which are expanding at a greater rate.
I also hope we may establish, as I am sure we can, that the figures mentioned are at constant prices. I make that clear because I noticed at Nottingham some understandable anxiety at the effect on the programme of increased costs. It is only fair to make it clear that the White Paper figures were at constant prices.
I share the hon. Member's interest in the sandwich courses and the improvement in the figures, but I am certainly not satisfied. I do not want him to think that I am. He will know that taking the whole further education sector, advanced and non-advanced—but more particularly, I think, in the former—there are, unfortunately, signs of difficulty in obtaining industrial places for some of our students on sandwich courses. I am glad to have the opportunity of mentioning that and to take up what the hon. Member has said. He will, I think, know that the C.B.I. has made a helpful intervention and has given cogent advice to its members about the making available of industrial places for students of this kind.
I believe that something like 60 per cent. of C.N.A.A. courses are of the sandwich type. As the hon. Member said, the number of students enrolled has

283
been increasing steadily since the C.N.A.A. Council was established. The figures, which I happen to have with me, show that over 14,000 C.N.A.A. degree students are now following sandwich courses in polytechnics and other further education colleges in England and Wales. About 12,500 are on sandwich courses leading to Higher National diplomas, about 4,000 are seeking other higher education qualifications and about 6,000 are taking lower level sandwich courses. In other words, including the university sector, in which there is also some sandwich course work a fact which is not always appreciated outside—something like 50,000 students in all are affected. It is an important part of the work of further education and I am glad to underpin the hon. Member's expression of its importance.
I am also happy to join with the hon. Member on the whole subject of day release. It is possible—I always try to be watchful of this—to make play with figures in almost any direction. The hon. Member fairly said that he was approaching this matter in an entirely non-controversial way and I hope that I respond in the same manner. We can, however, take pleasure from the fact, since this is a matter which spans both Governments, that the proportion of employees in the 15–17 age range who are receiving day release has increased from 19 per cent. in 1964–65 to 24·7 per cent. in 1969–70. This latest figure is the highest ever. In case, having said that, I appear to be complacent, I also join the hon. Member in saying that I am not satisfied that that is a sufficiently fast growth rate.
The hon. Member mentioned one area for concern and I would mention another. That is that the rate of release for those in clerical and commercial jobs is particularly low. This is something which I hope very much we can improve upon. I also join the hon. Member, however, in deploring that day release for girls is generally at a markedly lower rate. In 1969–70, 40 per cent. of young men in the 15–17 age range were being released, while the corresponding figure for girls was only 10 per cent.
The hon. Member has done a service by drawing attention to this. He fairly asked what I would propose to do about it. I must give him the equally clear
284
answer that in terms of directive—which I know he would not expect, but others outside might—the Government clearly do not wish to have powers of direction in this sense. I very much hope, however, that we can between us take every opportunity of exhortation and example.
I should simply like to say that in spite of the year being 1971, my view in a number of education sectors is that we still have a remarkably Victorian view towards women. The hon. Member is absolutely right in saying that there is a pool of ability available to the country which is being untapped. It is in part debates of this kind which draw attention to the deficiency.
Mr. Hamling: I do not look for direction. I certainly hope that as a result of this sort of debate, we shall get encouragement to teachers and parents to help to put us right and, as the hon. Gentleman says, to get away from the Victorian attitude.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. We obviously think alike on this. He would, I know, agree that the place where the most effective propaganda can be made available is at the school level. It is important for us to get this across in the schools, and with parents, too, who rightly have a great influence on their children. This debate has once again drawn attention to the deficiency and in so far as I have any modest influence in this, I lose no opportunity on appropriate occasions of drawing attention to it.
To sum up this section of my reply, I do not think that in the non-advanced sectors of further education we can surely expect to have the same exact type of forecasting as we rightly expect in advanced education and in the university sector. In part, the reason for that is part of the strength of the further education sector in that it is constructed to be, and is, very receptive to both local need and short-term demand. It can respond very much more quickly than the other sectors to requirements locally and also to requirements which show themselves at comparatively short notice. I simply say that I do not think we shall ever be able to have the exact type of forecasting in this sector that

285
we would expect in, for example, the university sector.
I was asked about the Department of the Environment's circular 2/70. Although, as the hon. Member will appreciate, I am slightly trespassing—I do it because he has been skilful in drawing me out—I am advised that there was consultation with the local authority associations. For my part, I am aware that there have been certain difficulties, one of which the hon. Member fairly drew to my attention. I merely wanted to be quite sure that I had heard him aright because until he courteously said that he would give me the appropriate paper, I wanted to follow up the particular case. But he has told me that he believes it to be Newcastle. I think that he would like to know that there have been within my Department consultations with those concerned with the case. There is another case in a different part of the country which also calls for consultation. If I find that there are some residuary problems, perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman or to those with whom I know he is in close touch.
The hon. Gentleman raised the pertinent question of the reorganisation of local government in relation to this subject. I wonder whether he would feel that one, although only one, of the reasons for proceeding with a reform of local government is that which he has given, namely, that in our unreformed local government some local authorities are perhaps not sufficiently large to be able effectively to look after what have become wide-drawing further education colleges and that the act of reform in the larger areas goes at least some way to meeting his point.
The logic of what the hon. Gentleman was saying might appear to be that the Government should take the administration of further education colleges from the local education authorities as reformed. I would regret that—and it is not in the Government's mind to do it—in part for the reason that I have outlined, namely, that I genuinely believe that the ability of such colleges—and I am thinking of non-advanced work now—to respond to local needs and local short-term demands is valuable and this asset might be lost if the administration were to be centralised. The hon. Gentle-
286
will know—I do not need to say this, but I put it on the record for the benefit of those who read our debates—that in the advanced sector, such as the polytechnics, where financial arrangements are being pooled, the constraints of which he spoke do not apply.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of what he described as paternalism in some governing bodies. Here there is very considerable progress to report. I can recall, when in opposition, taking part in the debates on the Bill, as it then was, which did a lot to bring up to date the governing bodies and government of colleges of education. This was followed by action being taken in the sector which we are now discussing. Circular 7/70, which gave advice to local education authorities about college government, is being worked on. I have been spending quite a considerable time on this matter because it is the articles, not the instruments of government, which we approve. We are in process of doing this throughout the sector we are discussing. I am at one with the hon. Gentleman in believing that this is a very important matter.
We should keep the matter in perspective. It is true that there are some who are not successful in their dealings with staff and students. There are some, not only in further education colleges, who deal in a high-handed way with staff or students. But it must be said that they are very much in the minority. One of the agreeable features of this sector is that the conditions which as the hon. Gentleman outlined so persuasively are to be found in London are also to be found elsewhere. I would think that that is so in the great majority of instances. However, one or two authorities feel uneasy about the move in the direction proposed in Circular 7/70. The representatives of one or two of them wish to see me about it. But the Government take on the commitment from the previous Government. There will not be a move away from that. When in opposition, we supported the previous Government and, I hope, helped them to pass the legislation in question.
Turning to the question of salaries and conditions of service, here I have to duck. The hon. Gentleman referred to the Inner London Education Authority as being overwhelmingly the finest in the country.

287
I do not wish to enter into any controversy about the league table, but the hon. Gentleman and I are surrounded, not because of his eloquence or mine, by a number of Welsh colleagues. Recently I was the guest of the Glamorgan Local Education Authority, which would reckon to put its boxing gloves on pretty sharply if it heard the Inner London Education Authority described as the finest education authority in the country. One would have to go a long way to find anything to better Glamorgan's warmth of welcome and hospitality. But, mercifully, there is a large number of local education authorities which are run in the most efficient and humane way.
I have considerable understanding of and sympathy for the sense of irritation felt by members of the A.T.T.I. and their colleagues at the delay in dealing with their salary claim. This is essentially a matter for the Burnham Further Education Committee and I must be careful not to enter into a discussion about it. I have no authority whatever to speak for the Committee. The management panel took the view that the outcome of the arbitration on school teachers' pay was a very relevant factor and that is why it did not make an offer. However, that arbitration is, to our pleasure, behind us. I understand that the Burham Further Education Committee is to meet on 2nd August and that the management panel intends to make an offer at that meeting. Any settlement will be back-dated to 1st April. I say that because I do not wish people to feel that they may be out of pocket.
I must be careful what I say about the question of local conditions of employment. I doubt whether many lecturers or those employed in the colleges we are discussing would want the Department to have a centralised authority. I may be wrong, but I do not think that that would be all that popular. I am sure that it would not be popular in school teaching. Therefore, I must give no impression of wishing the matter to be centralised. I genuinely believe that this is a case for professional representation through the appropriate body. The A.T.T.I. is well able to deal with this matter, and, in fact, deals with it very effectively. It would not be appropriate for me to indicate a personal preference in case I
288
inadvertently appeared to want to concentrate the matter in the centre.
I am conscious that my reply has been slightly ragged—I had no time to put my notes in order—but I hope that I have dealt in a courteous way with all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman. I trust that this necessarily short debate has directed the searchlight of attention on an extremely important sector of our education effort.
It is a wonderful thing that there should be interest and concern in the universities. I am behind it all the way. I do much to try to assist the development of the polytechnics, which I believe are one of the British people's great contributions in further education. But sometimes the non-advanced further education colleges are left out of this interest and concern. They play a vital part in our educational efforts, as the hon. Gentleman has shown effectively by his figures. It is right that from time to time the House should pause to consider them and to consider them profoundly.

SOUTH-EAST WALES (UNEMPLOYMENT)
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: I will begin this debate on unemployment in South-East Wales on a personal note. I am the first member of my family to have been to university, let alone to have graduated, by some accident. When I was thinking of my future during my time in the fifth form in the grammar school, the advice I received from members of my family was that I should become a fitter, an electrician or a draughtsman. The reason advanced for this advice was that these jobs simultaneously provided a reasonable level of income and, more important, a level of security not enjoyed by the unskilled, the semi-skilled and the miners—the kind of occupation that my family had always followed.
That relationship with an older generation illustrates a whole chapter of social history, not only in South Wales but in working-class areas throughout Britain. The previous generation put an absolute premium on security, and thought that boredom and hard work could be suffered so long as there was

289
job security, so long as a man could say that for the next 20 or 30 years he could be guaranteed a job. The reason for this was the previous generation's continual fear of gross insecurity during the inter-war years, and their determination that that insecurity should never be experienced by my generation.
We now have a new generation of workers in South Wales who since the war have become accustomed to a level of relatively high employment and to secure jobs and fairly advanced affluence—people who expect to take holidays every year and to have comfortable homes equipped with all the modern conveniences and motor cars. But this generation is now experiencing something it has never known before. These people who undertook new skills and have secure occupations, at the age of 30 to 35 are now knowing the sickening worry their parents' generation knew. Whereas 30 years ago the workers in South Wales were almost wholly engaged in the mines and the steel works, they are now employed as textile workers, engineers, chemical workers, glass workers and in all the other diversified trades that have developed since the war, and they are coming to know the worry, insecurity and desperation that was a permanent feature of the life of the prewar generations.
When one talks of unemployment in South-East Wales, one is talking not of the traditional mass unemployment of the coal-mining valleys, nor of the popular image of the depressed and depressing environment and of a depressed and malnourished generation. One is talking about ordinary workers, people who are indistinguishable from their comrades anywhere in the affluent areas of Britain. These are the people who are now facing unemployment on a scale unknown since before the war. There have been redundancies and layoffs in the industries which were intended to provide us with a secure, lasting, economic base. It is just like having cramp in the best developed muscle, and the people of South Wales are not equipped to deal with it.
Unless new initiatives are taken to provide the people with security and jobs and to guarantee the future of the children who are now leaving school, this
290
sense of disappointment and frustration will manifest itself in a way which has not been seen in South Wales since before the war. That feeling is still there, it is latent. There is a high level of expectation, and people want better things. It was bad enough when they never had anything and were not allowed to get anything because of mass unemployment, but when something which they have had is snatched away, the reaction in South Wales will be all the more bitter and destructive. I do not say that as a warning but to illustrate the feeling that the new unemployment is causing in South Wales.
In the last two years in South Wales Switchgear at Pontllanfraith, which is the village across the valley from where I live, there has been a rundown of 1,000 jobs. South Wales Switchgear, which once acted as a springboard for engineering training in our part of the country, now has a reduced apprentice force and announced its latest redundancy last week with the layoff of just over 70 workers—the last in a long train of redundancies stretching over a couple of years.
Alcan-Booth of Rogerstone, developed during the war and extended since, is right at the frontiers of technological development, not a backwoods firm, not a throwback from the last industrial revolution, not a rundown pit or iron mill, but a modern industry. That firm had over a period of 12 months a humanely conducted but nevertheless very large redundancy of 500 workers.
Another firm on the frontiers of technology, Hy-Mac Rhymney, which could have occupied a position in an expanding world market producing large earth-moving equipment, has had a sorry story over the last few years of continual rundown in an area and in an industry where the most sophisticated skills of boilermaking, engineering and instrument-making were being developed. That is a severe setback for our part of Wales.
Looking further down the valley there are the more recent redundancies of British Aluminium in Newport. According to an announcement made last week. 400 workers will become redundant in the next few months. That means that another 400 workers from the city and from the lower parts of the valley will know unemployment for the first time.

291
Possibly the most tragic of all is the redundancy announced last week by I.C.I. Fibres, Pontypool, of 500 workers. That firm is concerned with man-made fibres, one of the mainsprings of Britain's technological growth in the last 20 years. It is an industry that held out probably the greatest hopes for the future. As the Minister of State will know, textile development is becoming a new industry in South Wales and increasing numbers of people are employed in it. This is a body-blow to a dramatically contrasted area of South Wales—to the south—the new town of Cwmbran and to the north the villages of Blaenavon and Abersychan, villages from which the Chartists marched a hundred years ago.
In this area there was one unifying factor, the apparent security of the industrial complex in the southern part of the area. However, Guest Keen Nettlefold and I.C.I. Fibres are now centres of redundancy. We liked to think of these industries as the new, muscular industries providing opportunities and transforming the nature of industrial South Wales. We thought these would be civilised, high-paying, full-employment industries which would help to remove the scars of the past. The amount of disappointment that has hit South Wales and the coastal plain of Monmouthshire and Glamorgan in the last 12 months has been heartbreaking to behold.
People who thought that they were secure are now having their jobs whipped out from under them and some of them at 40 years of age, after ten or 12 years of gradual development, accumulating all the material possessions and comforts, face the future with a couple of hundred pounds redundancy pay and no promise of employment in the near future. Skilled draftsmen, technicians, mechanics have been hit by 12, 15 or 20 weeks of unemployment and are eking out what remains of their redundancy pay.
There is no more humiliating experience than that of unemployment, but to take a generation which has known something entirely different is to rub its face in ignominy. These people do not feel it is somebody else's fault. In the old days it was always the capitalists who were to blame. There were always working-class leaders to articulate the feelings
292
of the working class. They could always explain that once society was transformed, with new industry being brought in, and with a Government and Parliament which represented workers, these kind of things would not happen.
Well, we have now got all those things, and people are still becoming unemployed in South Wales. They look at this place and at the Government and say, "What is the point of our having any kind of democratic representation because all they do is to consider debate and talk? What we want is hope, security and jobs."
It does not appear to those people that an effort is being made by people with the power—and they know they have the power—to transform that situation. I hope it will not be long before this Government, with which I am in the most profound disagreement, realise the social as well as the economic consequences of this kind of unemployment and decide to deal strenuously with it.
On top of the big redundancies, we have the residue of pit closures over a decade; we also have the fall-out from smaller redundancies and the closure of smaller factories. This kind of bleak, gloomy, grim picture shatters the confidence even of the people in work. I am not just talking about Wales' 40,000 unemployed, on Monmouthshire's 8,000 or 9,000 unemployed, but about the people who are still in work by the skin of their teeth. Behind every redundant worker there are another two worrying themselves into distraction about who will be next—sweating that every weekend the management will put a slip into their pay packet, or a notice on the board, or will call in the trade union representative to decide who will go on the redundancy list.
Lack of confidence of this kind debilitates people's will to work. There is a theory of management—not widely held today, but widely held not so many years ago—that workers in fear are better workers, more responsible, more careful in their work. But the opposite is true. Workers who fear for their future could not care less about what is produced or how it is produced. They are absorbed with the question of their own future and cannot be worried about the national interest, or the company's interest or anybody else's interest. This is counterproductive in more ways than one. Many

293
workers—even those in work—are looking for other jobs. They want to get out of the firm. It emphasises their insecurity when, after redundancy, they try to move to another firm and are told that there is no vacancy. It simply makes them feel trapped, enclosed in a network of insecurity, knowing that there is nothing between them and the dole queue. This is no overstatement.
Any one of the unemployed, skilled or unskilled, could tell the Minister this story in far more erudite terms than I can by taking him to their own homes, showing him the cancelled holiday plans, taking him to the garage to show him the car which has been turned in, showing him the table where the television set used to be. This is the situation in South Wales where the people are liquidating their assets to try to keep their heads above water for a little longer.
I am not talking about dire poverty. I am talking about savage cuts in people's standards of living because of unemployment. That is as bad in its way as mass unemployment in the inter-war years. The answers we receive as representatives of the people when we are seeking to improve the economic situation in South Wales—and we have had this sort of answer from the Minister of State and from his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—is "Others are worse off than we are in Wales." I feel sorry for the Geordies, and I cannot feel happy that the people in Merseyside or Glasgow are worse off than we are, but we in Wales cannot be described as being all that better off.
In the 12 months between June, 1970, and June, 1971, in the travel-to-work areas which serve my constituency there was an increase of male unemployment of 535 and of female unemployment of 19, making a total loss of 554 jobs, or an increase in unemployment of 21 per cent. over the 12 months. I know that others are suffering, but no one can expect me, as a representative of these people, to put up with the situation because people elsewhere are worse off than we are.
We are also told that the measures taken by the Chancellor last week—his reflationary move, the slice off purchase tax—will assist the situation. I had this answer from the Secretary of State for Wales through the post this morning, but what we have done with these measures
294
is to clamber back on to the stop-go treadmill. If it causes a balance of payments strain, as it always has done when we have had a slight boost to the economy, the people will have to pay for the eventual balance of payments deficit. It is the people who are now unemployed who will have to take the restraints regardless of what Government are in power. Those people will be hit both ways.
We were told in another Parliamentary answer that the new public works programme announced for Wales, value £14 million, will be of assistance in the problem. This might be so. Nobody has said how many jobs are to be created, but the fact remains that, however extensive the public works, even if they are worth double or three times that amount, it does not offer much future to the unemployed or the youth of my constituency since very few permanent jobs will be created. I do not want to see our society turned into a nation of navvies. That is not the solution to the job problem we face. Therefore, welcome as the public works programme is, it is only a temporary stop-gap measure and will not compensate for the loss of 500 jobs in I.C.I., 400 in British Aluminium and 1,000 in the South Wales Switchgear or any of the other major redundancies.
We have debated these matters in the Welsh Grand Committee. It does not matter what moves the Government make towards a system of free depreciation or a tax allowance system of incentives to regional industry unless the cash exists, unless the liquidity is there and unless industrialists can get money with which to buy machinery and to engage in capital investment. There is little point in offering them depreciation on assets that they cannot afford to buy or raise the money to buy.
All the answers so far advanced by the Government either are left wanting or are no answers at all. Some, like the measures announced last week, welcome though they are, may ease the unemployment problem. But they hold the seeds of their own destruction and that of the future of the people whom they are intended to assist.
I have even been told in a Parliamentary Answer from the Department of Employment that Bedwellty was all right because it was a special development area.

295
There are four local authorities in my constituency. The Bedwellty Urban District is one, and that is in a special development area. Another, Mynyddislwyn, is also in a special development area. The other two are not. When I have made application to the Welsh office for assistance towards getting special development area status for Risca, which has an unemployment rate of 3·9 per cent., I have been told that matters are not sufficiently difficult in Risca to qualify it for special development area status.
Much as we should like it, the fact remains that, even if S.D.A. status came, it is only a title. It is only another pin in the map. It is no guarantee of additional employment. No great industry will be attracted to an area because of the advantages that accompany special development area status. It is intended to attract the minnows, and they are extremely welcome. But the granting of special development area status in itself is no guarantee of jobs. Certainly it is no guarantee of the right kinds of jobs, although we should be grateful for any kinds of jobs.
We face the progressive devitalisation and impoverishment of our community. Once it has started, it is almost impossible to stop. At best, it will be very expensive to haul our way back up the slope away from depression now that we have started to go downwards at full speed into a slump. Again, that is not expressing the situation in over-dramatic terms.
One aspect of the problem which is causing great distress is youth unemployment. I have spoken of the generation after the war, of which I am a member, which never knew unemployment. We are moving now to a further generation. I mean the young people, the school leavers of 15, 16, 17 and 18, and others in their twenties, some of them married, who are still described as youth unemployed. It is a national problem. The Times has talked of the 400,000 school leavers who face a bleak winter.
The senior careers officer for Monmouthshire, Miss C. A. Morris, was interviewed recently by the South Wales Argus, a newspaper which deserves praise for the way in which it has followed the problems of youth unemployment in Monmouthshire. In the course of that
296
interview, Miss Morris spoke of a situation in which there might easily be 1,250 unemployed youngsters in Monmouthshire by the end of August. She said that there would be 4,000 school leavers in the county this year, and she expects that, even by September, 1,250 of them may still be out of work. She said that if the numbers of children unemployed had not dropped significantly during September and October, the careers service in Monmouthshire would become really worried.
Miss Morris went on:
"The largest population of young people in the county is in the Eastern Valley and ten years ago it was by far the most prosperous area. But new industries haven't kept pace with the increase in population in the area … A barometer of unemployment in the county is that more boys are taking jobs in coal mining—work which recent generations have avoided if possible."
There is an explicit description of the situation by a woman who is involved professionally. She says:
"We must see that the young unemployed retain their enthusiasm and prevent them feeling they are not wanted."
That is the situation that we face in Monmouthshire, where between 20 and 25 per cent. of our young school leavers face unemployment when they leave school. It is a disastrous situation. It is impossible to think of it as anything else, when 1,250 youngsters have no prospect of a job when they leave school.
Miss Morris is not given to exaggeration. She is a temperate and moderate women. In a telephone conversation I had difficulty in getting her to use even mild language to describe the situation. However, the figure of 1,250 is sufficient description in itself.
Mr. James Kegie, the county planning officer, in his quarterly report published last May told us that in the 12 months between May, 1970, and May, 1971, youth unemployment went up by 34 per cent. in Monmouthshire. The other side of the picture is that youth vacancies went down by 68 per cent. in the same period.
There are parts of Monmouthshire in which there are 50 men to every vacancy registered at employment exchanges. The average in the county is that there are 11 unemployed persons for every vacancy. As I have said already, this is

297
the situation in an area which has become used to affluence and which has established a new kind of community where people are accustomed to security and comfort. We find ourselves with dramatically increasing unemployment figures and with no future for our young people. A whole generation bred on security now experiences the threat of the axe over their jobs. This kind of situation is nothing short of disaster. It is disappointing in human terms, and it must cause everyone in this House the greatest frustration. But frustration, compassion, sorrow and regard for the position of these people are not enough. We want positive action. The Government must change their regional jobs policy. There is no alternative.
If it is the case that we face a situation of continual run-down in our regions, the Government must show their interest in the regions by giving a massive injection of incentive capital and by forcing industries to go there. There must be expansion into the regions before the gate of Europe's regional policy sanctions closes upon us. It is no small wonder that the greatest fear exists in the regions about their future should we join the E.E.C. If we decide to go in, in the years before we become fully committed members, we must get as much as possible established in our regions to provide security for many years to come.
So dangerous and difficult is the youth employment position, I suggest that the Government would be justified in introducing a special youth employment premium which would give employers a bigger incentive to employ young people. To young people, who have no roots, who have no family commitments and who are mobile workers, the alternative is to leave the valley communities not just for five or six years but for ever. We shall then enter a vicious circle where industry does not come because we have become run-down communities, and where young people leave because industry is not coming. We have begun on that vicious circle already, and only rapid Government action can solve the problem. My suggestion is for a special premium to attract jobs for youngsters.
I should also like to see more use made of factories which are now standing empty in the valleys following closures in recent months. Some of them are fully
298
equipped with engineering machinery. Let us put the unemployed youth into those factories and give them 12-month apprenticeships so that they will at least have a qualification to face the world. The alternative is a completely disenchanted unemployed youth labour force which will vent its spleen on society, at best by being apathetic and, at worst, by being positively destructive. It is not only an economic case, but a social and humanitarian case which we put forward in asking the Government to take more urgent measures to deal with unemployment in South-East Wales.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and to echo many of the words which he has uttered, particularly his concern at the genuine sense of bitterness felt by many people in South Wales at the loss of the security which they thought was theirs, security for which they have fought and built up since 1945.
I share my hon. Friend's compassionate concern for young people. As long as the young people of Wales have a voice in this House, such as that raised so eloquently tonight by my hon. Friend, I am sure that we shall be able to solve many problems to their satisfaction.
The people of Wales have a long memory. It is possibly unfortunate for the Government, because that long memory guarantees that they will never have a majority of Members representing Welsh constituencies. Not only is that memory long, but certainly the oldest among us—in some cases, the not-so-old—have bitter memories of the high and lasting unemployment which was inflicted upon us by pre-war Tory Governments. That past experience taught us that unemployment was one of the greatest misfortunes which could be visited upon any community. It is because we remember those matters that we are debating this issue tonight.
It is because Welsh Labour Members share these long and bitter memories that, at the first meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee in this Parliament when we discussed the effect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's October policy statement on the Welsh economy, we constantly emphasised unemployment throughout our contributions. We asked questions and

299
criticised the Government. We criticised them then over their decision to abandon investment grants. How right we were. As events have shown, the abandonment of investment grants has proved catastrophic for Wales.
Despite the fears which we expressed on that occasion—indeed, almost because of those fears—we were admonished by the Secretary of State for Wales. On 9th December, at column 17 of the Welsh Grand Committee Report, the right hon. Gentleman said: "In particular, we"—that is the Government—
"reject the shameful waste which has occurred in the last six years in terms of unemployment and migration—a waste of the talent and skills of Welsh workers … we are determined to follow new policies, policies which will be more effective in securing the development of the Welsh economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 9th December, 1970; c. 17.]
The Secretary of State for Wales, in his first address to the Welsh Grand Committee since the new Government took office 12 months ago, said that the Government were determined to follow new policies. We do not expect the leopard to change its spots, but I am sure that we will be forgiven our cynicism as many of the things which we said on that occasion have proved to be right.
What have the Government's new policies brought to Wales? Certainly they have brought new records of unemployment—wonderful new records. Month by month, almost without exception, there have been new records of unemployment in Wales. On 12th July this year there were 44,062 unemployed persons in Wales. The number of unemployed in Wales has shot up by 9 per cent. in just one month. We have unemployment such as we have not seen since the last war. We now have unemployment figures which most people in South Wales certainly thought had gone for ever.
July, 1967—some hon. Members will recall that I have a personal reason for remembering 1967, since July was but three months after I fought a complicated and difficult by-election in the Rhondda—was not a popular month for the Labour Government. We had the worst July figure for unemployment under Labour—36,851. I criticised that unemployment figure then. Indeed, many of my hon. Friends criticised our own Government
300
when we thought that they were hesitant or reluctant to go far enough or fast enough towards the solution of that problem. If we were right to criticise our own Government about a level of unemployment of 36,000, as I believe we were, then we are more right—nay, it is our duty—to criticise the present Government with an unemployment figure of 44,000. The July, 1971, unemployment figure is 20 per cent. higher than it was in July, 1967.
These new policies, which were so proudly fanfared to us in Committee by the Secretary of State for Wales, have achieved what many of us had hoped was impossible, even for a Conservative Government. The Welsh unemployment figure has gone up by 26 per cent. in the first year of the new Conservative Administration. The sum of their achievement for Wales is a 26 per cent. increase in unemployment.
It is not merely the present figure of unemployment which worries us. The figure of 44,000 was compiled on 12th July, well before most of the Welsh school summer leavers joined the ranks of the unemployed. My hon. Friend gave details of youth unemployment in Monmouthshire. I have spoken to several youth employment officers in the county of Glamorgan. They have told me that this is the worst year they have experienced for trying to place school leavers in employment. If the figure was 44,000 before the school leavers were added and if this is to be the worst year for placing school leavers in employment, we have every reason for fearing that the figures for August and September will be infinitely worse.
It is a dreadfully demoralising experience for young people to be forced to sign on at the Labour Exchange as their first job in life. There are already about 2,000 young boys under the age of 18 unemployed in Wales, and nearly 1,500 girls. Those numbers must soon be inflated by our summer school leavers. Not for these young people the dignity and independence which comes from good and valuable employment, but the indignity, at the earliest possible age, of joining an ever-increasing dole queue.
It is not only these young people who are likely to be added to the dole queues in the coming months. We know that

301
there are normal seasonal trends in unemployment. Looking at the records of unemployment in Wales over the past few years, we see that between July and January there is likely to be an increase in the number unemployed, under normal circumstances, of between 6,000 and 8,000. It has sometimes reached between 10,000 and 12,000, but in most years, under normal conditions, the increase in unemployment between July and January has been between 6,000 and 8,000. If the trend continues this year, Wales will have at least 50,000 unemployed by the end of the winter. This is a heavy price to ask the people of Wales to pay for the confidence trick played upon them last June.
On 28th June, the Chancellor said that our fears were unfounded. He said that there were
"some distinct signs of an improvement … in a variety of fields."
He said that there had been improvement in industrial production, in the volume of retail sales, in new car registrations, and in the volume of exports. For good measure the Chancellor went on to say this in an attempt to reassure those of us on this side who had misgivings:
"On the basic problem of unemployment. I have repeatedly said that, taking account of the Budget measures"—
I am not sure which Budget he meant—
"I expected that the rate of increase in unemployment would, after a time, slow down and then stop. That is what I said, and certainly that has been happening, as is apparent from the figures that have been published in recent months."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 57–8.]
Unfortunately, when the unemployment figures came out on 12th July they gave the complete lie to the picture which the Chancellor had painted on 28th June. All those glorious signs of improvement had disappeared like water off a duck's back. When they disappeared, we had the third Budget in less than a year. On 28th June everything in the garden was lovely. Twenty-one days later there were the extra measures because the good signs had disappeared and it was necessary for even this Government to take action.
It is reasonable to be fair to all Governments. This Government's third Budget at least showed that the Government had become frightened by the level
302
of unemployment—by the monster of their own creation.
I welcome many parts of the Chancellor's third Budget. I believe that much of it is belated and should have been done months earlier. If it had been done months earlier many of those who are now unemployed in Wales would have been saved the indignity of having to join the dole queue.
I sincerely hope that the Chancellor's measures will have some success in reducing the level of unemployment. If I am proved wrong in my estimate of 50,000 unemployed in Wales this winter, no one will be more pleased than me. I look forward to being proved wrong.
I issue this warning to the Government. It will not be sufficient merely to slow down the rate of increase in unemployment. What Wales wants, what my Scottish colleagues will want later, and what all the unemployed throughout the United Kingdom want, is a dramatic drop in the real numbers of unemployed and a movement towards the time when all men and women who are able and Willing to work are in employment. That is the goal. Unless we see some positive steps taken to reach it, we shall expect even this Chancellor to give us the fourth Budget, if necessary.
Few of us in Wales are anything but depressed by the news we have read in the Press in the past year. Almost every local paper in South Wales, and even the national paper—the Western Mail—has given us detail after detail of closures of one factory after another, of cutbacks in production, and of redundancies, until these words have become as well known in the Wales of 1971 as they were in the Wales of 1931.
I will state some of the facts which lead me to say that the whole economic climate in Wales has worsened in the last 12 months. We expect the Government to take action to solve the problem created by these facts. First, unemployment has increased by 26 per cent. from July, 1970, to July this year. Second, between January and April, 1971, 8,100 workers were declared redundant in manufacturing industries. I take that figure from a Parliamentary Answer. Trade union officials to whom I have spoken both in my constituency and throughout South Wales tell me that this

303
is the worst period they can remember since the war for having to deal with redundancies. One trade union official said that practically the only thing he does nowadays is deal with redundancies in factories.
Third, in June, 1970, there were 30,000 jobs in prospect—the hope for the future, as it were; in June, 1971, there were less than 25,000.
The fourth fact concerns industrial development certificates. When hon. Members opposite were in opposition they used the question of the granting of I.D.C.s as a rod with which to beat the back of the Labour Government because we were not doing enough in this regard. In the first quarter of 1971 I.D.C.s were granted for a total of 0·7 million square feet. That sounds a lot, but in the first quarter of 1970 under the Labour Government the figure was 1·9 million sq. ft. So there has been a reduction of 63 per cent.
The Government must direct their attention to those facts. The people of Wales want to know what concrete proposals the Government have for dealing with the redundancies, the loss of job opportunities, and the unemployment which has been created.
I am sure that the Minister of State will inform the Secretary of State of the points which have been raised during the debate. The Secretary of State is responsible to the people of Wales. If the unemployment figures show further increases in August and September, we shall expect action by the Secretary of State. Up to now the Government have been able to claim—with a certain amount of justification—that they have not been long in office and that part of the blame can be laid on the Labour Government. That excuse is wearing thin. Wales will expect to see some action from this Government if the July and August unemployment figures are excessively high.
The Minister of State will have seen Motion No. 653. In it, hon. Members on this side say that if the figures are high we expect the Secretary of State to recall the Welsh Grand Committee, even during the recess, so that the Government can be asked to give some account of their stewardship.
304
My speech has been almost entirely concerned with Wales, although I know that my hon. Friends for Scottish constituencies are raring to go. All that I have said on Wales is equally true of Scotland and the other development areas. It will go down to the everlasting discredit of this Government if they continue to tolerate the ever-increasing unemployment figures of the United Kingdom in 1971.
8.29 p.m.
Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on initiating this debate. He spoke finely and made a useful though depressing contribution. He is not, perhaps fortunately, old enough to remember South Wales as it was before the war, but I was brought up there before the war and I have very vivid memories of it. It would be a disaster not only for South Wales but for the nation if we saw those times again.
I should like to warn against deliberately creating a climate of depression. Loss of confidence will be the biggest obstacle that we shall eventually have to overcome again if we are to bring blooming prosperity to South-East Wales.
This is not the occasion to discuss the wider implications of the Government's strategy—namely, the attempt to join the Common Market and its effects on South Wales. I think that hon. Members would agree that that subject has been discussed enough for the time being. Nor would it be especially fruitful to discuss the Government's tax reforms, the object of which is to strengthen and make more realistic the developments in areas like South-East Wales, because that subject too has been considerably worked over.
But it may be useful to consider the strategy which is being followed and to say something about the preliminary reactions that I personally have had to the Severnside feasibility study. It contains ideas which have not been given sufficient publicity. For instance, the summary of conclusions on page 13 contains the words:
"Our main conclusions are:
1. Severnside is an area where we believe there will be continuing tendencies for growth sufficient to attract a net inward flow of about 7,000 people a year, unless positive measures to restrict growth there, for which

305
we can see no economic justification, are taken."
Throughout this detailed and highly interesting report are ideas which suggest openings for much deeper and further consideration. I have the feeling that a strategic error is being made in our placing too much emphasis on the responsibility here of the Welsh Office. It seems to me that the problems of South-East Wales are national problems and should be tackled on the basis of a national strategy. I should like to be sure that the Government have absorbed the long-term problems of the economic development of this island and can see the problems of South-East Wales in the national context.
Many people have complained that, since the war, there has been an overheating in the South-East, that the growth which we have had since the war has been concentrated too much in the London area and the Home Counties. There is a great deal of truth in this. I should like to see the Government as not a short-term but a long-term strategy, devising means for shifting the whole basis of growth, not away from the South-East, because one wants the South-East to continue to grow, but more widely over the whole island, including particularly the Severnside area.
It is unfortunate, possibly, that, in this report, for reasons that I do not know, the Cardiff area and Glamorgan were regarded as a fringe area of Severnside. I should have thought that the Glamorgan area, with its great concentration on population and industry, could have been taken as one of the major objects of the study. It is possibly because of this decision that the study has concentrated on the development potential of Newport, rather than the north bank of the Severn, including Barry, Cardiff and Newport, all together.
Among the important developments in the area during recent years the ultimate effects of which have not yet been fully felt is the building of the Severn bridge. There are many people in South Wales who complain that, although the Severn bridge is an enormously valuable facility for business, trade and production, it is nevertheless tending to suck business away to Bristol and is making Bristol into the capital of the Severnside region. From
306
my limited observation, I think that there is an element of truth in that. I hope, therefore, that we may see a greater emphasis on the balanced development of Severnside, without Bristol being allowed to emerge as the capital, with Newport, Cardiff and the other towns on the north bank simply being satellites.
I owe to Lord Brecon, who speaks so wisely and with such knowledge of Welsh affairs, the vision of Cardiff and Newport gradually growing into one major population and industrial centre able, as it were, to look Bristol in the eye, or, perhaps—not to use a platform phrase—able to ensure that there is a balanced growth on both sides of the Severn, with as much growth in, so to speak, the Welsh part of the area as on the English side.
I was one of those Members who felt, when public opinion rose up and decided that it would not wear a new national airport at Cublington, that we ought to consider the possibility of building the new airport on the Severn. I still regard this as an idea worth consideration. I feel that, if we had the tens of millions—or is it hundreds of millions?—to spend on the creation of a new national airport, we could well have thought of putting it into an area of high population and declining industry rather than in an area where there are at present relatively few people and only a large number of Brent geese.
If the decision has been firmly taken in favour of Foulness, it is probably too late to go back now, but that still leaves us with the possibility of creating a national airport in due course on the Severn. I have seen the study and been impressed by the work done by the Cardiff firm of engineers which has examined in considerable detail the possibility of building a new airport on the Severn, and I think that the Government should look much more closely into the possibility if not of building a national airport there, at least of building a new airport which would serve Severnside and the Birmingham area.
I am afraid that one of the projects which the Government have in hand, namely, the concept of the Llantrisant new town, may prove to be contrary to the ideal strategy for Severnside. I think that hon. Members know my interest in this matter, and I do not hesitate to declare it, although I am not exactly sure what it is. Whether it is in my personal

307
interest or the interest of my family that there should be a new town in Llantrisant, that there should not be a new town there, or that Llantrisant should be allowed to develop in some other way, I am not perfectly certain, but I am extremely interested personally in this matter none the less.
My view from the start has been that it would be a mistake to concentrate growth in Llantrisant to the exclusion of the opportunities available in the neighbouring areas. I regard Llantrisant as a highly promising centre for industrial growth, and it is an attractive area where I should be glad to see the development of population as well, but it ought not to be overdone by Government attention being concentrated upon it to the exclusion of the other openings for growth. We cannot afford to stifle growth anywhere in South-East Wales, even if it be done with the idea of making a great success of the Llantrisant new town project.
I should like to see the development of Llantrisant allowed to proceed in a much more natural way. I do not like population forecasts of 140,000 by the end of the century. That seems to me to be more hectic even than the development of the Klondyke. Population growth on that scale cannot be well carried through. Nor am I very happy with the idea of a population of 70,000 to 90,000 in Llantrisant in the lifetime, probably, of all hon. Members now in the House. That also seems too hectic and unbalanced.
A population target by the end of the century of, perhaps, 40,000 or 50,000 seems to me to be much more realistic, and it would be attainable, in my opinion, if the Glamorgan County Council, or whatever be the appropriate authority, were to publish a town map for the Llantrisant area and say, "This is the type of development which we should approve in Llantrisant. Now go ahead and do it yourselves". Fortuitously, the local authority is already the owner of a large part of the area which would be likely to be included in a town map for Llantrisant, so one would, therefore, have balanced public and private development which could make the old town of Llantrisant live again as something really fine. But I doubt what may come if
308
the idea is persisted in of establishing in due course a corporation, with all the pomposity and red tape which goes with this idea of a formal new town.
I say no more about the concept of Llantrisant new town, but will the Government put their minds to the attractions of developing the areas lying between Cardiff and Newport, and particularly the area lying south of the railway and of the main road; that is, south of the motorway that is to be? There we have a very large flat area, relatively without existing population and relatively without history, which can be easily drained, which has immediate access to the sea and could easily have access to an airport as well, which would present, if it were done with vision and as a national project and not something merely loaded on to the Welsh Office as a Welsh project, an opportunity of producing a new trading estate for the 21st century which would be as fine as anything in Europe.
I do not want the opportunity to be lost because responsibility for development on the north bank of the Severn is divided between too many small centres, none really powerful enough to be a magnet for professional, business and, indeed, recreational developments. Already we are too much fragmented on the north bank. We have Barry—a fine place, but not large enough to attract a business community of real size on its own. We have Caerphilly, another historic centre; Llantrisant, Cwmbran, Newport, Pontypool. All these centres are attractive in themselves, with great potential, but none is able to look at Bristol as the headquarters as it might be for a great new industry, for a sales force, or as a place where professional people will come together to provide the centre of excellence which I would like to see in this part of the country.
I believe that it was I who first used the phrase "Britain Garden City, the world capital". I am quite serious in using that phrase again. We must look forward to the continuing growth of population, to a total reconstruction of the old eighteenth and nineteenth century housing in which our people are still living, and to the creation of completely new industries for a new age; and must see Britain not just as an offshore island of Europe,

309
but as one of the world's major trading and business centres.
In this development, as I envisage it, south-east Wales must play a prominent part. So may we hear from my hon. Friend that his eyes are set on the distant scene; that he is not too much preoccupied with pinpointing developments here and solving a particular immediate problem there, but is determined that south-east Wales should be integrated with the economy of the whole island, of Europe and of the world?
The other day I read the sketch for a transport programme for Europe in the 1980's, and the phrase in that sketch which stuck with me is: "Birmingham, Severnside, Bordeaux, Turin"—just an example of the sort of way in which we should be thinking of new trade routes and new areas for development and intercommunication. We must not see ourselves as being a region away from the main centre, as we have tended to do, thinking of South Wales as simply a fringe area of the South-East. Instead, we must have a much larger vision of the way in which people will earn their livings and contribute to society in the 21st century.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: I will try to be brief, as there are so many more topics to be discussed. I have been tempted to speak by what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) said in his admirable opening speech and by certain remarks of the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams). I agree wholeheartedly with what he said about Llantrisant. But I disagree with his suggestion about the development between Newport and Cardiff. He should have learnt the lessons of the South-East and the massive growth of conurbations. If we develop that area between Newport and Cardiff we shall fall into the same trap as the South-East, creating a massive conurbation which could result from the development of Severnside to Cardiff and Barry. As far as South Wales is concerned, heaven forbid!
My hon. Friend referred to his personal experience. He is of the post-war generation. I was born just before the First World War, and I remember the 1930s. I believe that my experience exemplifies the basis of the thinking amongst the
310
older generation in South Wales today. Perhaps the hon. Member for Kensington, South will understand when we are perhaps accused of painting too gloomy a picture.
I was accepted for two universities, having taken what was then known as the Higher Certificate. For domestic reasons, I could not accept either. The older generation will recall that there were only two safe jobs in the valleys—the town hall and the local co-op. There was a vacancy in the town hall, and 150 of us tried for that one job, boys who had done well, passing their Higher Certificates with dislinction and so on. I was the lucky one. I do not know whether I was fortunate to stay in the valleys of South Wales, but I think so, because of the great communities which exist there.
The pay for my job rose from £1 to £2 a week. Although that was a long time ago, those were very low wages even then. I was fortunate in that I gained tremendous experience in various departments of local council work. I have found that very useful to me, particularly here.
I know that the Minister knows the areas of which we are speaking as well as any hon. Member does. It is because of my own experience there that I think that the ghost of the 1930s still stalks the valleys of South Wales. It is no good accusing us of painting too gloomy a picture when we know that the situation at present is gloomy indeed.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty and Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) have referred to the various means the Government are adopting to provide incentives for industry in the development areas. They have been discussed in the Welsh Grand Committee, but for certain reasons I could not say a word there. I will not develop what my hon. Friends said, except to say that I think that the incentives will be insufficient to attract the industry which we need when the hoped-for expansion in the economy comes. I would refer to only one aspect, for which I do not blame the present Government; my own Government were equally responsible. In 1973 the regional employment premium will disappear. I implore the Minister of State to press on the Secretary of State the urgent necessity of introducing something that will replace

311
the regional employment premium, which has been a tremendous inducement to industrialists in development areas, particularly in South Wales.
The hon. Member for Kensington, South referred to Severnside and Llantrisant. I would be out of order were I to discuss the new towns. I shall simply refer to the Llantrisant development in so far as it affects the employment prospects and the prospects of the communities in the valleys of South Wales in Glamorgan and Monmouthshire.
I was very pleased to read that the Minister of State had said that as far as the Severnside development was concerned he had priorities for solving the problems of the valleys. I am paraphrasing what I read in the Press. I welcome that because it is a correct priority. I would like the Welsh Office to use this priority in relation to Llantrisant. It has been stated by the Government that the new town will cost ultimately about £3 million. An authoritative study of the problems of the valleys by a civil engineer has suggested that we could solve them, and this would involve a population of about 700,000, for less than £130 million. It is my contention that we could solve the problems for far less than that.
There are one or two serious fallacies in the thinking about new towns. We all know that at the moment studies are being made into the effects of new towns—what they are or are not achieving. What they are not achieving is the community spirit. They are soulless places, apart from their other problems. If we depopulate the valleys, as Llantrisant will certainly do, we shall find—and the Secretary of State admitted this in answer to my supplementary question—that we have destroyed the existing, lively communities. Others will ultimately evolve, but not within the next 50 or 100 years. That is one of the things which the studies of the new towns is revealing.
If the new town of Llantrisant is to go ahead, and I understand the preliminary planning steps are being taken, we shall find that more and more of the existing social capital in the valley towns in Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire will be under-used. The social capital is not poverty stricken. In my valley there
312
are many new schools, including a comprehensive school, which admittedly consists of a number of schools. There is existing social capital which if brought up-to-date will ultmately be of great benefit.
I am convinced that the various Secretaries of State—and I am talking about Secretaries of State in previous governments—with one exception to which I will refer, have been persuaded, whether by the officials in the Welsh Office or elsewhere, into taking unnecessary actions. What the hon. Gentleman for Kensington, South said was quite right. Llantrisant can develop quite naturally. Industry will be welcomed there. I know all about the arguments that money could be available through the New Towns Act. This is not necessary in Llantrisant. I refer to the destruction of the existing communities.
No one who has lived in the valleys of South Wales, which I know as well as anyone, can deny that the communities which exist there, not only educational but cultural, are equal to any others in the United Kingdom—certainly surpassing anything existing in a metropolis like London or in those vast conurbations around Manchester and Birmingham—and I say that with all respect to my colleagues from those areas. These are lively communities. I feel horror-stricken by certain developments which far-seeing Ministers should not be persuaded by officials and so-called planning experts to undertake. From my experience in local government, I know a lot about planning experts. When I first came to this House, one of my jobs was to do with planning.
I welcome the reference to the Severn-side development by the Minister, but it must be one of his priorities to see that, before the development of Llantrisant to a new town of 70,000 or 80,000 by the early 1990s, capital is diverted into the valleys to retain the communities there as they exist now.
There is an excellent precedent. I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) here because I think he has an idea of what I am about to say. I commend this precedent to the Minister of State because he knows the area as well as anyone. Jim Griffiths—I was going to

313
say, my right hon. Friend—when Secretary of State for Wales, suggested a new town for mid-Wales. I was horrified by the idea, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey succeeded Mr. Griffiths, he had the force of character to sweep it aside. Where was the population for that new town to come from? From existing communities, which the Minister knows so well, in Mid-Wales and other valley communities, and from the Birmingham area. I felt that we would be destroying existing communities. We would not be bringing employment to the sorely distressed areas which needed it. We would be sucking them dry of their population for the new town.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, however, decided to develop the existing communities, and what a wise decision that was. Those of us studying the effects of new towns—and a study is long overdue—should have regard to what happened in Mid-Wales when my right hon. Friend set up the Mid-Wales Development Corporation. By that action alone, he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), who succeeded him, set a first-class example to the rest of the United Kingdom in considering new town development. One of the reasons for a new town is to house overspill from existing conurbations. But there are no conurbations in South Wales. Nor are there conurbations in Mid-Wales.
Indeed, people are moving away from Mid-Wales. They are migrating en masse. Therefore, the excuse for a new town in Mid-Wales was to house overspill from Birmingham. I am not a nationalist and I welcome English people to Wales. My father was, in any case, an Englishman. Llantrisant New Town is not designed to satisfy an overspill but ostensibly to satisfy the industrial development taking place there. Where, however, is the overspill to come from? The Secretary of State himself answered this when he said that thousands would have to come from existing communities in the valleys. I therefore ask the Minister of State to look seriously at the Llantrisant project.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed to meet my colleagues and a number of local authorities about the problems of the heads of the valleys. I ask him to look at this more seriously
314
and to think of what is happening in an area, the Newtown area, which he knows as well as anyone.
My colleagues and I, when we meet the Secretary of State with members of the local authorities, will ask him to think about a feasibility study for the Heads of the Valleys with the ultimate object of establishing a development corporation for them. All the evidence—and I have it and I defy any official of the Welsh Office or anywhere else to counter it—shows that in all respects this is a strategic area. I know that there is difficulty about inducing industrialists to come, but, once there, they will remain, dependent on the economic climate.
I have not referred to my own constituency and I have three brief questions about it. We have one advance factory which is idle and we have the old Lastex Yard factory in the Hirwaun trading estate which is idle. Thirdly, we have the promise of a Remploy factory, one of the achievements of which I am proud and for which I have been agitating for many years. J hope that the Minister of Stale will consider these three and will let me know about them in due course.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Gwynoro Jones: J shall not follow the comments of those hon. Members who have discoursed on Llantrisant and the area between Cardiff and Newport, interesting though that would be. The problem which we are facing is more closely related to next year, the next 18 months, the next two years.
The problems of Wales cannot be solved while there is high unemployment. Those are not my words: they are the words of that euphemistic document, "A Better Tomorrow", the Tory manifesto for Wales of last year. In case the Minister of State did not mean what he said then, we had better get the Minister of Agriculture here to define the meaning. I will quote the sentence again:
"The problems of Wales cannot be solved while there is high unemployment."
Then 34,000 people in Wales were out of work; now, 44,000. If there were high unemployment in June, last year, what is the figure now? Is it high, very high, or absolutely disgraceful?
The Tory manifesto went on to say that the aim of the Government was

315
an effective regional development policy. It said:
"We regard an effective regional policy as a vital element in our economic and social strategy."
It went on to promise
"a thorough-going study of development area policy."
We are still awaiting that thorough-going study. Measures have been taken in the last nine or ten months which have been completely divorced from any study and which have gravely damaged the employment situation in Wales.
Nobody can doubt that with the change of Government there was a considerable loss of confidence in Wales about the economic situation, not just by the opponents of the Government, but by economic experts and by industrialists, a loss of confidence which was at variance with what had previously occurred. At the end of 1969, The Times said that
"A decade of growth lies ahead for Wales."
as a result of Labour Government policy. It did not use those final words, but that was the implication. It said:
"A decade of growth lies ahead for Wales."
In July, last year, Peter Jay said:
"The fundamental weaknesses in the South Wales industrial base are being repaired."
In other words, a structural reform was taking place as the old industries were in decline and the efforts made from 1965 were beginning to pay dividends.
Although there was a considerable loss of jobs in five years, 50,000 to 60,000, to counter that more than 30,000 jobs were provided in new manufacturing industries. While employment in manufacturing industries in Britain was declining by 88,000 in 1967 and 1968, 1 per cent. in the two years, there was an increase in employment in manufacturing industries in Wales of more than 2·3 per cent.
Before I come to what has happened since June of last year, I should like to refer again to "A Better Tomorrow". In it, the Tory Party claimed that
"We shall concentrate on building up the advantages and amenities of those areas best suited for growth"—
I would like the Minister of State to decide which areas are best suited for growth—
"rather than on giving indiscriminate and wasteful help."
316
Are the Government now saying that wasteful help was given to almost 200 new firms which came to Wales under the investment grant policy?
From 1965 to 1970, more than 190 new firms came to Wales. Was that wasteful help? If the Government claim that it was wasteful, it is a further reflection on their so-called friends in private industry that they were prepared to throw that money away. Indeed, the contrary is the truth. This money was spent in a very good way. During those five years, over 190 firms came to the Principality.
The manifesto of the Conservative Party said nothing about the abandonment of investment grants. This is the key to the whole situation. The abandonment of this policy——
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. David Gibson-Watt)indicated dissent.
Mr. Jones: The Minister shakes his head, but I will endeavour later to quote what industrialists have said about the effect which the abandonment of investment grants has had on unemployment in Wales.
Lord Robens said that the National Coal Board could not go on any further with the Abernant plant. I have often quoted the words of Lord Robens and the Minister of State is aware of them. Lord Robens said that the multi-heat plant for Abernant was cancelled as a direct result of the abandonment of investment grants. As a comparison Sir Val Duncan, Chairman of R.T.Z., claimed that it was only a Labour Government investment grant that brought the aluminium smelter to Anglesey—a £50 million investment.
The C.B.I. survey of 194 industrialists in Wales gave rise to the claim that the significant drop in expansion proposals for the Principality was directly the result of the abandonment of investment grants. It is no use the Minister and his Government saying that this change of policy did not affect the situation. The fact is that it affected it to a great extent.
One of the ways in which we can measure the situation is by industrial inquiries. In the second half of last year, we had the lowest number of industrial inquiries in the Principality since 1967—that is, since the development area policy was in full flow. In the first half of 1971, however, the figures were far

317
worse. Comparing the second half of 1970, for which the present Government are responsible, with the second half of 1969, there was a drop of 20 per cent. in industrial inquiries for sites in Wales. In the first half of 1971, compared with the corresponding period in 1970, the drop was not 20 per cent. but was even greater at 35 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) spoke of 7,000 or 8,000 redundancies during the first three months of 1971. If he quoted the figure for the full year for which the Government are responsible, it would be far more condemnatory of them. During the time of this Government, 16,490 people have been made redundant in Wales. This is what this debate is all about.
I endeavoured to analyse this problem in the economic affairs debate last week. The differential between the development areas and the non-development areas has closed. With the abandonment of investment grants, it is not now as great an incentive or much of an advantage for industrialists to go to Wales, Scotland, the North-East or North-West of England. If the Minister questions my assertion, I draw his attention to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which showed that the investment allowance system had resulted in a cut of 60 per cent. in the incentive. Not content with that, the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week lowered the incentive still further by increasing the first year allowance in non-development areas from 60 to 80 per cent. That further closed the differential between the development areas such as Wales and non-development areas.
It is for reasons such as these that the situation in the Principality is gradually getting worse. The number of firms going to Wales has considerably decreased. In the first five months of 1971, 12 new firms went to the Principality. In the first five months of 1969, the figure was 24. The situation is reaching the point at which the Government must believe that what we are saying is true. It is one thing to play party politics, but the facts as presented in Wales show clearly that what has been done has been damaging and that what
318
the Government are endeavouring to do will have no beneficial effect.
Carmarthenshire, in West Wales, has been involved in this gradual rundown. Unemployment in Carmarthenshire on average has doubled. Hon. Members have spoken of increases of unemployment in their area of 20 to 30 per cent. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. Denzil Davies) could quote statistics for the Llanelly employment exchange area, which includes Kidwelly, showing that unemployment there has doubled in the last year. A recent report said that unemployment in West Wales had increased by 2,000. The redundancies in Carmarthenshire in the last few months have totalled 600. This may not sound a large figure, but it is large in an area like Carmarthenshire where industries are few and far between.
They were much more few and far between when we had a Government before 1964 which carried out policies which in some respects were similar to those being adopted now. The present policies are not new. The thoroughgoing study to which "A Better Tomorrow" refers is not a thorough-going study. It is a reversion to policies adopted before 1964. Free depreciation and investment allowances were in vogue then. The Conservative Party believed in them. What are the facts? From 1960 to 1964, 63 new firms went to Wales. The figure for 1965 to 1970 was 196. From 1960 to 1964 we had investment allowances and free depreciation. From 1965 to 1970 we had investment grants.
One of the bogies raised by hon. Members opposite—and it is frequently raised by the Secretary of State for Employment—is that unemployment in the regions and development areas will not decrease unless wage-cost escalation is controlled and that high wages are the cause of unemployment.
Not being content merely to make my own remarks, on which the Minister of State might not put great weight, for fear they might be too partisan, I will quote from the Western Mail, which has this to say about the C.B.I. survey of March, 1971, in Wales:
"Somewhat surprisingly the survey fails to confirm the view expressed by the C.B.I. itself and others that rising wages and labour disputes are major factor affecting industry's willingness to invest. These two factors are at

319
the bottom of the list of reasons singled out by firms in their replies as reasons for not going ahead with projects."
There were many other reasons of far greater importance than the bogus arguments of the Government about wages being too high. If high wages are the sole reason for high unemployment, why is unemployment higher in South Wales, where wages are on average much lower, than it is in the South-East and the Midlands where wages are higher?
Under the present Government the future for Wales is bleak. The Government's efforts in the last few weeks, the measures of last week and the public works programme which has been announced will do nothing to ameliorate the situation in the Principality. Will the Minister say what percentage of the 11,000 people who have lost their jobs in the last year will be able to get work as a result of the public works programme? The giving, on the one hand, of £14 million and the taking away, on the other hand, of £38 million in investment grants does not strike me as a fair deal for the Principality. The reduction of purchase tax, welcome though it might be, does nothing to tackle the basic structural problems of the Principality.
The Government will have to rethink on a major scale their policies towards the regions. They will have to be less doctrinaire on investment grants. It is surprising that, according to the Prime Minister, if the European Commission comes out in favour of investment grants then even this Conservative Government, with all their love for the Common Market, would be prepared to accept the advantages of investment grants. If that will be good enough then, why cannot it be good enough now for the development areas? If the Government are not prepared to do this, will they consider giving a choice to the industrialist? Let the industrialist to speak for himself let him have a choice between investment grant and investment allowance. The Conservative Party is the party of freedom. Let the industrialists have the freedom of choice.
What is happening is completely contrary to what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said about the value of investment allowances. All we know in the Principality is that we were hav-
320
ing on a pretty significant scale small but albeit important industries, and these industries have been hit by the taking away of investment grants. They have lost cash in the first few years of their existence.
I return to a document which we shall have to quote to keep the minds of the people of Wales constantly alert to the dangers of being hoodwinked into another election catastrophe. "A Better Tomorrow" talked of fiddling by the Labour Government, about muddling and the chaotic position. If that was muddle, the last year has been an absolute disaster.
"A Better Tomorrow" spoke about "Record prices." At the end of Labour's period of office the average increase was 6 per cent. a year. The figure in the last year has been 10 per cent. That document also mentioned "Record post-war unemployment." Unemployment in the Principality has increased by 20 to 25 per cent. in the last year. A better tomorrow will only come under a future Labour Government.
9.20 p.m.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Gibson-Watt): It might be convenient for the House if I were to say something in answer to this debate, which has been a helpful and serious discussion of the employment problems we face in Wales today. The fact that my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Department of Employment is also sitting on the Government Front Bench at the moment underlines the importance which the Government attach to employment problems in Wales.
This debate has been full of reasoned and courteous speeches and I shall do my best to answer as many as possible of the points which have been raised. I shall not be able to answer in detail the three points raised by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), but I shall be pleased to answer him in correspondence. Nor shall I answer the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—who raised the matter of Severn-side and also the question of Llantrisant.
Perhaps I will at least deal with what my hon. Friend said about Llantrisant. I do not accept that the development of Llantrisant as a new town poses a

321
threat to the valley communities. I know that this is a matter of disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and others and myself. Some of the jobs created there would be taken by people travelling from the valleys, but there is a danger that if many of those people are not found work at more attractive locations, such as Llantrisant, they might well leave Wales and we shall lose them altogether. We must do all we can to get industries to the valleys, to Llantrisant and to other places in the mouth of the valley.
I do not believe that Llantrisant is a threat to the valleys. It is an essential part of the process of stabilising the population of the area as a whole. I repeat what I have said on television that it is not the Government's intention to go ahead with the planned developed of Severnside until the economic problems of South Wales have been satisfactorily dealt with.
Nobody would deny that the number of people unemployed in Wales is too high. This is accepted in all parts of the House and by anybody who has at heart the well being of the Welsh people.
Many figures have been quoted in this debate. If those figures told the whole story, the prospect would be an unhappy one. Fortunately they do not do so. In the time available I want first to put these figures into a better perspective; and, secondly, to explain yet again to the House and the people of Wales what the Government are doing to create more employment in Wales.
I begin by recalling that the present deterioration in the employment situation in Wales dates from July, 1966. Not a winter has passed since that year without unemployment in Wales topping the 40,000 mark. Wales is not alone in this and, although it gives no great comfort to us, some other parts of the country have experienced a more marked deterioration than we have.
The rate of unemployment in Wales in July was 1·35 times the rate in the country as a whole. A year ago, the ratio was 1·44. In mid-1969, it was 1·7. In mid-1965, it was 1·85. It is of considerable significance that unemployment among men has, in proportionate terms, risen less in Wales over the past year than in any other region of the country—
322
even less than in the South-East and the Midlands.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that the new developments brought to the Principality during their term of office are one reason why Wales can withstand the pressure of events rather better these days. However, successive Governments since the war have done much to restructure the industries of Wales. This is a continuing process. Perhaps I might draw attention to the decision announced last week to complete the removal of the Royal Mint to Llantrisant. All the productive processes carried out at present at Tower Hill will be transferred to Llantrisant, and it is hoped that the new Mint will be in full operation in 1974.
The introduction of new industry to Wales, although on a smaller scale than last year and certainly much less than we would wish, has not ceased entirely. In the first half of this year, companies located outside Wales have continued to inquire about sites and premises in the Principality. It is even more encouraging that a substantial number of firms have pursued their interest by visits to sites and factories in Wales. In the first half of the current year, there has also been a not inconsiderable number of new industrial buildings authorised by the issue of I.D.Cs. in respect of projects in Wales.
It is not enough to say that, though the situation is worrying, it is not as bad as it might be. Hon. Members opposite have asked what the Government are doing about it. The answer is that we are doing a great deal. It is no good pretending that Wales can prosper independently of an increase in prosperity throughout Britain as a whole. Therefore, the starting point is the measures covering the nation as a whole announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, both in his Budget and more recently, to stimulate investment and to encourage economic expansion.
Mr. Gwynoro Jones: Reverting to the hon. Gentleman's point about I.D.C. figures and industrial inquiries, does the hon. Gentleman believe that a drop of 35 per cent. in inquiries and a drop of 60 per cent. in I.D.C.s mean that the Government are doing a good job?
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I was not saying that the numbers had not dropped. However, there is a considerable volume in both these directions which the House would be unwise to ignore in any general future look at how employment can come to Wales.
To the cuts in Corporation Tax and S.E.T. which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced has now been added the stimulus to investment over the next two years given by the raising of the first-year allowance in respect of all capital expenditure on plant and machinery outside development areas from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. This will apply to the substantial intermediate areas of South Wales and the non-assisted areas of North-East Wales.
More than that, major steps have been taken to stimulate the economy. These cannot fail to benefit Wales. All existing term controls of hire purchase, credit sale and rental agreements have been removed, and the four rates of purchase tax have been cut. Together with the cuts in taxation announced last autumn and in the Budget, the total reductions in taxation amount to about £1,100 million this year and £1,400 million in 1972–73. National output is expected to grow between the first half of 1971 and the first half of 1972 by between 4 and 4½ per cent. This surely is the most fundamental way of tackling unemployment, wherever it may be.
It will be said—indeed, it has been said tonight—that the increase in the first year's allowance on plant and machinery outside development areas reduces the differential advantage of those development areas. If nothing else had been done, this would be true; but the stimulus announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer must be seen in conjunction with two others. The first, also announced by the Chancellor last week, is the decision to make free depreciation available on plant and machinery in use in service industries in the development areas. The second—this is a significant concession-is the provision allowing firms in development areas——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am inclined to think that the hon. Gentleman is not, strictly speaking, in order in discussing matters
324
of allowances, and so on, which are considered part of taxation. That is not in order in this debate. I do not want to put too fine a point on it, but I think that we must have regard to that. I was on the point of pulling up an hon. Member about it before, but he left the point so I did not go on with it. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to use his discretion.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall certainly use my discretion. I am trying to illustrate the particular problems of the development areas, but I shall shape my speech accordingly.
This is the provision allowing firms in development areas to set off free depreciation against profits of the preceding three years, if need be. This will enable such firms, even when current profit levels may be low, to take full advantage of the free depreciation concession.
Important as they are, the backward free depreciation concession and the extension of free depreciation to service industries are by no means all that has been done specifically to help the development areas, about which hon. Gentlemen opposite are particularly concerned.
Allowances for Government training centre trainees are to be raised in September so that, for example, a single man will receive £5 a week more than he would get by way of unemployment benefit compared with the £3.25 which he get now.
Mr. Kinnock: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government training centres, one of which is situated in my constituency, are over-subscribed in any case. While the extra allowance is welcome, it surely will not make much difference to the reduction of unemployment in the area.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I cannot agree that these training centres are over-subscribed.
Mr. Kinnock: Some training centres are highly over-subscribed.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope that what I have just announced will raise the occupancy rate in Government training centres to a higher level in Wales than at present. In addition, employers are being approached to increase the retraining of unemployed workers, at Government expense, in spare capacity in employers' establishments. The educational

325
interests concerned are also to be consulted about the promotion of more extensive training for the unemployed, including, for the first time, those under 18—a point raised by the hon. Gentleman—in colleges of further education.
The House and the country at large will have noted the announcements of accelerated infrastructure expenditure referred to in the debate. Projects with a value of perhaps £14 million are likely to be undertaken in Wales between now and March 1973. Officials at the Welsh Office are in urgent consultation with county and county district councils——
Mr. Neil McBride: Welcome as is the announcement of the £14 million on public works, is it not a palliative? Is not the real need in Wales for modern, self-generating industries bringing with them greater employment opportunities for men?
Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Gentleman should not look a gift horse in the mouth. If we in Wales can get £14 million for such a job we should not be slow in accepting it. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we would all like to see more science-based industries coming to Wales. Indeed, that is our objective.
The work which is to be done by local councils will include school works, hospital works, and road projects. The criteria are that the works in question should be labour-intensive, they should represent a permanent improvement of the infrastructure, and they should be substantially completed by March, 1973. A major objective of this acceleration of the infrastructural expenditure is the immediate provision of additional employment. Works of this sort are part of the continuing effort to make Wales a more attractive place—more attractive to industrialists from elsewhere and more attractive, too, for those of us who live in the Principality.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Is the Minister of State satisfied that the £14 million will be taken up entirely between now and March 1973? If it is not, will the Government allow a spillover so that the total is spent in Wales by local authorities?
Mr. Gibson-Watt: The object of this exercise and the reason for having a reasonably short time is to inject a sense of urgency. That is why I said that the Welsh Office officials were having urgent consultations with the councils concerned. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a definite answer to his question about spill-over, but I will raise it with my right hon. Friend.
Over the years since 1945 various Governments have played their part in modernising and varying the pattern of industry in Wales, particularly in South Wales. Both Conservative and Labour Governments have been in Office when the coal industry has cut out pits. Today coal is in great demand and, indeed, the National Coal Board is advertising for more men in these areas.
Certainly the picture in these major industries is one of change and the importance of retraining cannot be over-estimated, but we must all admit that for the older middle-aged worker it is not so easy to readjust to another job, particularly when industry is becoming so highly automated.
If I have concentrated on the employment position in South-East Wales, it is because the greatest concentration of population lives there. It is also because the two hon. Members who put their names against this subject represent constituencies in Monmouth and Glamorgan in South-East Wales. Other parts of Wales have different problems which are sometimes difficult to measure exactly because of the seasonal aspect of the tourist industry. The halving of the selective employment tax should help.
Wherever one lives in Wales it must be the firm intention of government to aim for as high a level of good employment as possible. It is true that the situation cannot be judged on a month's figures or on a quarter's figures, but for far too long the British economy has been stagnant. The steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will certainly help the economy to grow. They will increase industrial activity and Wales will benefit alike with other parts of the country and her people as a result will get better employment.

SCOTLAND (UNEMPLOYMENT)
9.37 p.m.
Mr. Bruce Millan: I want to talk principally about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, but I shall first set the situation there against the general background of the unemployment situation in Scotland. We have just listened to a very interesting debate about the Welsh position. The unemployment situation in Scotland is much more serious than is that in Wales. There are more than 134,000 people unemployed in Scotland. The male unemployment rate is 8·2 per cent. Apart from a particular month in 1963 when weather conditions contributed to the situation, it is necessary to go back to the 1930s before we can get figures which compare with the present disastrous figures in Scotland.
One of the S.T.U.C. representatives who interviewed the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry yesterday told the Press afterwards that he felt that the Government had no grip on the situation. It has also been our feeling over the last year that nothing that they have done—the special development area policy, the increased public works programme for the winter and the third Budget of three days ago—is a real response to a situation which is characterised in Scotland by high unemployment and—just as serious—by a tremendous falling away of confidence among business, industry and work people about the Government's ability to tackle the present situation successfully.
The second thing that I hope that the Government have in mind is the situation of Rolls-Royce There is sometimes a tendency to think that the future of the RB211 and of Rolls-Royce as a whole is principally a matter for Derby. Derby would be badly affected if the contract did not go ahead, but Rolls-Royce is also a major employer in the West of Scotland. We have suffered serious redundancy already this year and there is still great uncertainty, which we hope will be cleared up before the recess, about Rolls-Royce.
We were promised a statement of Government policy towards the shipbuilding industry a few months ago. In a Written Answer yesterday to my right
328
hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the Government's commitment to a statement has been considerably qualified. Now, it is only a statement dealing with shipbuilding credit that is to be made before the House rises. But we have had this unfortunate period of uncertainty, when it has not been clear to the House and the industry what the Government's policy is and will be over the next few years.
I have no intention of going over the whole history of this unfortunate company, U.C.S., in what must be a short speech in a short debate, but I want to go back at least to February of this year, when the Government guarantees for shipbuilding credits, suspended during the winter, were resumed. It is now accepted that had they not been resumed the company would have gone bankrupt then. A large element in the serious financial position of the company was precisely the withdrawal of credit between November and February. This meant that 80 per cent. of the money going into the company was cut off. So the Government, in that and other respects, bear a very heavy responsibility for the crisis which overtook U.C.S. in February and which continued until the liquidation of 14th June.
It is also clear that Government credits would not have been resumed in February if there had not been at the same time the Rolls-Royce collapse. The Government could not have afforded two major simultaneous collapses affecting the West of Scotland.
It is significant that the date on which the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry informed the U.C.S. management that the credits were being resumed was 3rd February, precisely the date on which Rolls-Royce collapsed, the announcement of that collapse being made on 4th February. It is clear, therefore, that if if it had not been for the Rolls-Royce situation U.C.S. would have been allowed to go into liquidation in February instead of in June.
I shall not go over the whole history of the company, but one must observe, having in mind this sort of situation, the Rolls-Royce affair, and, for that matter, the inadequacy of the Government's White Paper on the Common Market, that the conclusion becomes more and more clear that we need a considerable

329
extension of the work of Select Committees so that we may look into the whole history of affairs of this kind.
The point which I make about the situation as it was in February is that, whatever one may think about the management of the company over the past few months or over the years, it is ludicrous and indefensible for the Government to say, as they have been saying, that they had such assurances in February about the viability of the company that they felt at that time that they need take no further action, that the company had a long-term future, and that it would no longer need Government assistance. In the light of the whole history of the matter, the suspension of the credits, and the circumstances in which the credits were resumed in February, it is scandalous that the Government took that attitude of disengagement in February. In the event, of course, it was not long before the situation had become even worse, and we had the diquidation on 14th June.
One of the ironic features is that, although the Government at the end of the day refused to give the money for which U.C.S. was asking to maintain the company in being, they had already spent about half the sum immediately involved, namely, £3 million, in commitments to keep U.C.S. going up to the end of the first week in August, and it is likely, of course, that the eventual reconstruction of the company will cost many millions more. Thus, one of the reasons for the Government's attitude in June, that they could not afford the money, or that the money was not worth spending, has already been falsified by events and will increasingly be seen to be falsified in the months to come.
The Government have appointed four expert advisers. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), I had the opportunity to meet the four advisers on Friday, 16th July. I am willing to accept right away that not only do they understand the financial aspects of the U.C.S. affair but they have an understanding of the human and social consequences for Clydeside. One looks forward to seeing what their recommendations are. But I must emphasise that the appointment of the four expert
330
advisers and the receipt from them of advice about what should happen in the reconstruction of U.C.S. in no way diminishes the major responsibility for the future of the company, which rests firmly on the Government.
I hope that there will be no attempt tonight, or when we have a statement of the Government's position on the company, to hide behind any advice which may have been given by the advisers and to use that as a means of avoiding the Government's major responsibility for the situation. The Government must have wider considerations in mind in relation to the human and social consequences than any advisers can have, however eminent or expert and however wide their remit may be.
We see in the Press today that the advisers have made their report to the Government. I should be glad if the Minister were able to confirm that and, if so, if he could give some indication of what the report contains. I appreciate that if there is to be a statement later this week the Minister may not be willing to give us that information tonight.
Further, I hope that the report will be published. I express that hope having no idea what it contains. It may include criticisms of the former Government—so be it—but we are entitled to have a full report published so that we may know the advisers' views of the present situation, and may know how they think the company has been handled up to now. Most particularly, we want to know when the Government will state their conclusions on the report, and their proposals for the reconstruction of U.C.S.
Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman may care to comment on a report in the Scottish Daily Express this morning that the Government have already made up their minds before receipt of the advisers' report. If that were accurate, it would be scandalous. If it is not, I hope that we shall have a categorical denial from the Minister, because I hope that the Government will take account not only of what the advisers tell them but of the speeches in this debate.
My own main interest, and what I shall look for more than anything else in the Government's proposals for the reconstruction of U.C.S., is the maintenance of the jobs of the men at present employed by the company. I say quite firmly and

331
without qualification that the unemployment situation in Glasgow and Clydeside is so serious, and comprises such an appalling proportion of the working population in the summer months, that we cannot afford to lose a single additional job there at the moment. That is my main consideration, and that is the main test we shall make of the Government's announcement.
There have been a number of statements in the Press recently about initiatives taken by individual industrialists to buy up bits and pieces of U.C.S. at Clydebank or elsewhere. I hope that the Minister would give us an unqualified pledge tonight that such initiatives will not be accepted; that what we shall have for U.C.S. will be an overall solution. It would be absolutely disastrous to have a reconstruction of U.C.S. which was based on the acceptance of proposals which in isolation might seem plausible and attractive but which would militate against an overall solution for the U.C.S. consortium as a whole. I warn the Minister that if the Government do accept this kind of piecemeal approach they will call on their heads very considerable anger and bitterness from the workers, and from this side of the House as well. In this connection, again, I hope that we shall have no solution which involves the closing down of shipbuilding in Clydebank. There has been a good deal of loose and facile talk about Clydebank being dispensable. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) will no doubt expand on this point, if he gets the opportunity, very much more eloquently than I can, but anything that involves the closure of shipbuilding there would be a disaster, and would be felt very bitterly on Clydeside as a whole. I hope that we shall have no such solution.
If the solution which the Government propose this week—and I hope that it will not be the case—involves large-scale redundancies, there will be an explosion of anger on Clydeside. There is already considerable anger and resentment there, but it has been contained so far. The men concerned have behaved very responsibly, whether in their trips to London, their demonstrations in Glasgow, or in any other way. The Minister should not be misled by that. If we
332
have an announcement this week involving large-scale redundancies in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders there will be a considerable outburst of anger and resentment in Clydeside, and the consequences can be very serious.
I hope that despite the mistakes they have made over U.C.S. over the past few months, and their negligence in allowing the situation to deteriorate between February and June, the Government will have appreciated by now the strength of feeling in Scotland as a whole about the situation and will produce a solution which will allow the men now employed by U.C.S. to get on with the job in a responsible way, and restore some of the image of U.C.S., which has been so seriously damaged in the past few weeks.
9.56 p.m.
Mr. Peter Doig: Scotland has the highest unemployment of all the regions in Great Britain. The present figure is 6·2 per cent. One of the highest areas of unemployment is Tayside.
I in no way begrudge the development area status given to the West of Scotland, whose problem is equally serious, but that status has not been given to the Tayside region, which has every bit as great a need, in relation not only to its present unemployment figure but to what is likely to happen in the near future. The prospects are pretty gloomy on the Clyde, but they are equally gloomy in the Tayside area. For example, we recently had over 800 applicants for one lorry driver's job in Dundee. We have on our unemployment register draughtsmen, analysts, industrial chemists, electronic engineers and toolmakers—all sorts of highly skilled people, as well as unskilled.
We have an additional hazard. The main industry of the region for a long time has been the jute industry, which has been suffering a more rapid contraction than was ever bargained for. A further problem is that because of the trouble in East Pakistan there is a serious threat to the continuing supply of raw jute to the area. If those supplies are cut off or seriously curtailed the effect on Tayside will be catastrophic, and we shall be back to the 1930s, when at one point half the working population of Dundee were unemployed. In four different years

333
we had over 30,000 unemployed in the area. So we know what high unemployment is, and its effects. I know, because I was one of those who was unemployed then.
We also worry about what will happen if the Government have their way and take us into the Common Market. The position will undoubtedly get worse in our area, because the pull to the South East, which is considerable, will be greatly increased.
Mr. Ian MacArthur: Would the hon. Gentleman care to consider that just as American industry came into Scotland, not least to Dundee, in order to gain entry through Britain into the Commonwealth and the sterling area, and later the European Free Trade Area, so European industry will come into Scotland in order to build in Scotland the new Europe?
Mr. Doig: If the hon. Gentleman will consider for a moment he will realise that, according to his argument, we shall lose the advantage we now have of preferential treatment in the Commonwealth and in E.F.T.A. and get in its place hypothetical trade with Europe. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of international companies now have factories in Europe?
I have raised on many occasions in this House the worsening unemployment situation in my area. I did so as recently as 18th February of this year and pointed out that the prospects were bad. Since then we have sent a deputation to St. Andrew's House from our area. That deputation comprised representatives of the town council, including the Lord Provost, members of the Trades Council, of the Chamber of Commerce, local M.Ps and, in a separate delegation, the Provost of Arbroath.
The House can take it from me that when the Dundee Chamber of Commerce starts to get worried about unemployment the situation is really bad. If there is one body of people which has continually played down the prospects and the high unemployment it has been the Chamber of Commerce. We had high unemployment in the 1930s, when the Labour Government passed a Distribution of Industry Act which brought vast new industries to our area. Fortunately they are still there otherwise we should
334
be in a bad way. It was in that situation, when Government policy was proving so successful, that the Chamber of Commerce went to the Board of Trade and requested that no further industry be brought to Dundee.
Recently, together with the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce, I took part in a programme on Grampian Television about unemployment in our area. The Secretary tried to persuade me to play down the bleak prospects. When we find that Chamber of Commerce is worried things are really bad.
I ask the Government to treat Dundee as they have treated other areas with comparable unemployment and with prospects not as bad as ours. They have given those other areas special development status but have refused to accord the same status to us. [Interruption.] One of my hon. Friends says that it means nothing. I shall explain that it means quite a lot. During that visit to St. Andrew's House I made two points to the Under-Secretary of State. I requested first that we should be given special development area status. Like my hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary said that this did not make much difference. My reply to that was, "Well if it does not make much difference why not give it to us?" He did not give it to us because he knew there was a considerable difference. I also asked the Under-Secretary to persuade the Government to change their policy in favour of a more expansionist course.
We have had a reduction of purchase tax, probably because almost every other area has been making the same demands. Eventually this will help, but it will take a long time to work its way through. Hire-purchase controls have been relaxed but this was not done willingly by the Government. It was forced upon them because the finance companies were giving better terms than the Government would allow on ordinary credit. The regional employment premium is to end in 1974. The gross profits of a number of firms in Dundee are less then the regional employment premium they are getting, so some of them will go out of existence in 1974 or before then.
Dundee Council is enterprising. It has proved its success when given the same incentives as other areas. Indeed, it has probably been the most successful in

335
Britain in attracting new industries. Now we do not have such incentives and are failing to attract industry but, in its tradition of enterprise, as it has done before, the Council is sending a delegation to the United States, headed by the Lord Provost. It hopes to attract the interest of American firms in establishing factories in Dundee.
Why is the delegation going to the United States? It is because of our experience with English and American companies. The last time we got a number of English companies and a number of American companies to Dundee, in the end, practically all the English companies disappeared while nearly all the American companies are still there and growing. Secondly, the American firms have given better wages and conditions and have raised the standard of living of the workers in the area. We have thus good reason to go to America.
But it is terribly important that the delegation, which is going there at the expense of its members and of the Council, should be able to tell American manufacturers that Dundee is one of the areas which can give the top inducements. If the delegation cannot say that, the ground will be cut from beneath it. This is why it is important for Dundee to get special development area status as soon as possible. Under these inducements, a factory would be free for five years and would get 30 per cent. of the wage bill for three years. These are not small concessions. We have a right to this status because of our high unemployment figure, which has been growing for a considerable time and is still growing, and because our future prospects are worse than those of most other areas.
I want to turn now to considering how the two Governments have treated the unemployed. The Labour Government started the redundancy payments scheme to cushion the effect of redundancy. They gave earnings-related benefit for a year in order to help people to adjust to a lower standard of living if they lost their jobs, very often through no fault of their own. They gave rate rebates to the badly off. What have the Conservative Government done? They have stopped the payment of unemployment and sickness benefit for the first three days. They have put up rents, and are to increase
336
them further. They have put prices up. They have done everything to make the position worse and not better for the unemployed—and they are creating more unemployment.
Then there is the serious problem of the young people leaving school. Soon, another group will be coming out of school in Dundee—highly trained, qualified and well-educated children. But the last group who left school have not yet found jobs. What are the chances, therefore, of the latest school leavers finding jobs? How many of them will stay in Dundee when there is no prospect for them?
One group has usually found work by the time the next group of school-leavers leaves school, but this time those who left on the last occasion are still looking for jobs with the fresh lot due to arrive shortly. One can appreciate the effect on these young people, who have studied to equip themselves for a career and who will find no jobs to do. Is it any wonder that crime increases when these intelligent young people find that this is how the world treats them?
The unemployment rate in Dundee is almost 9 per cent., but in Arbroath it is 14 per cent., a shocking figure. The Provost of Arbroath has agreed to support our application for the whole of Tayside to have special development area status, because he recognises that the prospects for Arbroath depend on those for the whole area, which consists largely of Dundee and the area round about. Dundee is the big centre which must attract people before the places round about can benefit. The Provost of Arbroath recognises that, and supports the application for special development area status for the Tayside region.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not propose to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) and comment on his area. I know the problems of Dundee, because, before I was translated to membership of this House, I lectured in the College of Technology in Dundee. The whole House will appreciate the strength of feeling in my hon. Friend's constituency about the problem of unemployment in the city. But the topic of the debate is unemployment in Scotland generally, with particular regard to

337
the relationship of that unemployment to the future of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
One of my most poignant memories is of the early days of the Second World War when I saw a film called "The Shipbuilders" which was based on George Blake's novel of the same name. The film struck a clear note, because I remembered in my own family the feeling of uplift on the Clyde, perhaps mistaken, when in certain areas in Govan and Clydebank and the north bank of the river, the yards had orders, albeit for naval craft, the feeling, perhaps mistaken, that at last some of the horrors of the deep depression years had been removed.
I do not want in any way to exaggerate the position and I do not want to paint it blacker than it is, but in the West of Scotland the feeling of hopelessness is again arising. That is a bad thing, because we have moved a long way in economic management from the dark dismal days of the '20s and the '30s. Clydebank and the U.C.S., I warn the Government, have become a symbol. If, on the basis of economic management and industrial logic, the Government choose to disregard that symbol, they will do so at their peril.
There is no point in the Minister lecturing Scotland about changes in industrial structure. I would like to indicate briefly some of the changes in the industrial structure of Scotland which have taken place over a very short period. In 1959 mining and quarrying in Scotland employed 100,000 people. In 1970 the number had been reduced to 40,000. In 1970 the approximate numbers in employment in shipbuilding were 34,000. This was a reduction by one-third of the 1960 level. The fall in employment in key industries and services, excluding agriculture, during the 1960s was well over 100,000.
Before hon. Members opposite—I refer particularly to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Mac-Arthur), who likes to quote the reductions—rise on this issue, I want to make it clear that one of the things the Labour Government did during their term of office was to produce a rather unusual consequence in the later years of the 1960s. It was the first period since the war when Scottish employment moved in tune with, or slightly more favourably
338
than, employment in Great Britain as a whole.
We have seen changes in the employment potentialities in Scotland, particularly over the past year. There has been a loss in male employment in Scotland and we are seeing evidence again of the earnings gap widening. That gap, which was closing particularly during the last few years of the Labour Government, is beginning to widen. It is all very well for the Government to quote their new hasty measures—they are not well planned as the Prime Minister would have us believe—to produce an acceleration in economic growth, ostensibly to the extent of 4·5 per cent.
Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Member said that the earnings gap was beginning to widen. Where does he get those figures from? The last figures which I saw in a Parliamentary Answer showed that the earnings gap was contracting.
Mr. Douglas: The hon. Member is quite right in what he says. I take what I have said from an article in today's Financial Times by Andrew Hargrave, who draws attention to the Scottish Digest of Statistics figures, published today. I have tried to get the most recent information but I quote from that article in good faith. If I am wrong, I will take an early opportunity to correct it, but I take it that Mr. Hargrave, in quoting from an official publication, is right on the ball, as he usually is.
The situation in Scotland is different from that in other areas of Great Britain. Our problem has been to maintain a high enough level of investment to employ all our labour resources. We see the danger that skilled manpower in the Scottish economy will not be employed.
In addition to the problem of U.C.S., my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has instanced the problem of Rolls-Royce. We cannot afford to have an erosion of skill in Scotland. We certainly cannot afford to have that erosion of skill in West Central Scotland. The Chancellor's policy must be to increase the level of investment, not only in the economy as a whole, but particularly in the regions. That is why we regret in some ways a further reduction of the differential. The

339
increase in the first-year write-off allowance from 60 per cent. to 80 per cent. albeit for a short time, reduces the differential in the incentive for industrialists to go to regions like Scotland.
Let me turn briefly to the catalogue of events which has led to the present position concerning U.C.S. My hon. Friend the Member for Craigton has rightly asked for a full submission of the views of the four advisers appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. We want full publication in this House of the report and the advice given to the Government on this issue.
The triggering off of the present position goes back to 14th October last. It was all very well for the S.I.B. Director to present evidence—and I am not sure how it was done—directly to the Department for Trade and Industry on that date about the position of the company and casting doubt whether it would in the long run be profitable. I do not doubt Mr. Mackenzie's commercial competence, but I am willing to say that his pessimistic view fell on very receptive ears in the Department. I want publication for the House not only of the views of the industrial advisers but of the report on the shipbuilding industry which the Minister prepared for his party. There was a significant gap from 14th to 27th October before the Under-Secretary of State told the Chairman of U.C.S. that until the Government were satisfied about the future viability of the company new credit guarantees could not be issued to shipowners. Mr. Mackenzie cast doubts on 14th October. It took the Government 13 days to give the company their views about the credit guarantees.
I think that Mr. Mackenzie, because of his position at that time, was saying, "Yarrow (Shipbuilders) Ltd. is in difficulties and if Yarrow (Shipbuilders) fails Yarrow and Company and U.C.S. come down as well; the whole lot crumbles. Therefore, you must take steps, not by the use of the Department of Trade and Industry, but by the use of Ministry of Defence money to shore up Yarrow (Shipbuilders) and, indirectly, Yarrow and Company. You have to extricate Yarrow (Shipbuilders) from U.C.S."
Perhaps there were reasons for that, but the time scale must be examined by
340
the House. I am not doubting the industrial logic, but it does not look very will when we realise that the only part of U.C.S. for which a purposeful existence can be guaranteed is Yarrow (Shipbuilders). I have no objection to companies trying to save themselves, but let us consider what Yarrow (Shipbuilders) has obtained.
Yarrow and Company was paid money, from the public purse indirectly, against profits on orders which were building in Yarrow (Shipbuilders) when the consortium was formed. The ships in question were not profit-makers but loss-makers. Also, Yarrow (Shipbuilders) received a substantial loan from the S.I.B. to build a covered berth. It received a £4·5 million loan from the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps the Minister, in reply, will indicate the total subvention to Yarrow and Company and Yarrow (Shipbuilders) from the public purse. It would be very interesting to know that, because I doubt the credibility of some of the answers I have been given in the House to the effect that there was no possibility of incompatibility in having the S.I.B. director on the board of Yarrow and Company when the negotiations were going on. At the time Yarrow and Company had two directors on the board of U.C.S. This is not a happy situation. Sufficient information could come to the Department from the board of the U.C.S. from one director rather than two.
To return to the Scottish economy as a whole, we have seen in the second half of 1970 a level of redundancies which equalled the whole of the redundancies in 1969, and 60 per cent. of the redundancies recorded were in West Central Scotland.
We know the level of unemployment in Scotland of 134,572, but let us contrast that with the number of unfilled vacancies. There are 13 persons looking for every job available in Scotland. In terms of males it is much worse than that. In terms of the number of young people coming out of school and university who are being deprived of a job, it is a scandal.
I return in my closing remarks to what I tried to emphasise at the beginning of my speech. Clydebank and U.C.S. have become symbols. We cannot discard on narrow pragmatic, economic grounds;

341
we do so at our peril. I have never looked for unconstitutional ways of solving problems. I have come to the House to plead the case for the people of Scotland, the people of the United Kingdom and the under-privileged sections of the community in general. If the House has an unreceptive ear to the pleadings of the people in West Central Scotland, and in particular of those who might be deprived of a livelihood by the
342
failure of U.C.S. or by some narrow piece of industrial logic that will dismember U.C.S., we shall have gone back a great distance in terms of time and of economic thinking. We have to be responsive to these demands. These men are asking for their right to work, their right to be employed in purposeful employment for the nation's good, and I hope the House will be responsive to these pleas.
10.28 p.m.
Mr. Ian Campbell: The problems of U.C.S. are in the minds of most people in my constituency. My constituency is adjacent to East Dunbartonshire, which includes Clydebank about which we are all worrying tonight. Unemployment is already high in my area. There are people working with U.C.S. and for firms which supply the shipyards. The seriousness of the situation has not been exaggerated by my hon. Friends.
I will deal first with the help that can be given by the granting of special development area status. I was interested in the views expressed by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) on the added incentives to industry which he feels development area status might bring. Unfortunately, it has not so far provided any great impetus locally. In my constituency a holding firm took over a factory and, having seen the availability of labour, the type of labour employed and the adaptability of the labour, the firm decided to bring another project into the area from the south. However, the firm was unable to claim special development area grant because it was already operating in the area with its other small factory. The Government should look at this matter closely, particularly at this time when unemployment is so high that rules might be bent a little.
I appreciate that care must be taken when using taxpayers' money to subsidise firms, but this matter must be looked at carefully in order to maintain the balance.
Local authorities can build factories for rental. They have to apply for Government finance to do so, but they are not allowed to give special development area terms to industrialists in the way of rental. The Government should seek to tie up this matter as between local authorities and central government.
There are other things Government and local authorities can do to help to ease the tragic situation in Central Scotland and Clydeside. Some have already been mentioned, such as the roads programme: but this does not go far enough. More money should be spent on
344
the infrastructure by increasing housing and school-building programmes, and at the same time we should seek to help the construction industry.
In the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee this morning on housing finance, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland called on planning authorities to do their utmost to assist new private housing developments by giving consents and where possible making grants available. In an area of high unemployment new houses are necessary to attract new industry to the area. Industry requires houses for its managers and key workers. Housing is a matter to which industry pays great attention.
It is not always the planning authorities who are slow to move in these projects. Too often the Scottish Development Department Roads Division worries too much about access and egress in regard to trunk roads. A "trunk road" in my constituency can mean a two-lane road.
There is another hazard in my area. We live in a scenic area and therefore many of our schemes must be passed to the Countryside Commission. Although this is possibly correct as a concept, it does not help schemes to get off the ground quickly, and sometimes interests clash.
One long term answer to combat high unemployment in West Dunbartonshire is to improve the tourist trade. One needs only to walk in the area just outside this House to see what tourism means to London. We have Loch Lomond which is famous the world over, and that area is under-developed. People are seeking to develop in that area at the moment, and for some months there has been a project to provide an immediate number of jobs. There is an application to provide a bear park. This may be a strange thing to bring up in the middle of an industrial debate, but if that project could be got off the ground this winter 200 jobs could be provided for unskilled men in the area. Many of these unskilled men have been signing on at the employment exchange for a number of months. That project would involve many of those unskilled people and this must be of advantage to the area. This would provide an impetus, so that we could carry on from there.

345
I want now to turn to the blackest spot in the constituency, to what might be termed "the Plessey affair". Twice already in this House I have called for a public inquiry into the closure of the Alexandria factory, which was once the Royal Naval Torpedo Factory. Two years ago, the factory had built in it a clean area, probably not equalled anywhere in the country, to prepare for the manufacture of the Mark 24 torpedo, which was to be one of the most advanced weapons of its type in the world. The factory had new machines installed, and it had a work force of 1,500.
The project ran into trouble 18 months ago and was abandoned. Then Plessey was given the job of getting rid of the "bugs" in the design. Plessey took over the factory to use it for other purposes, and the Government handed it over to the company in January of this year. In July, six short months later, its closure was announced. In the Glasgow Herald yesterday there was an article by a naval correspondent which said that the new wire-guided torpedo's trials had been a success. The bugs have been ironed out, and the weapon has been proved. Where is the manufacture to go?
One of the unfortunate aspects of the situation is that it is clear that Plessey must have known for some time that the design problems were on the point of solution. Yet the company decided to close the factory which was tooled, equipped and had the manpower to carry out the manufacture of the torpedo. I believe that the company is to be the sole manufacturer of this defence project.
If Plessey was a dirty name before, it has become a lot muddier this week. One wonders whether the take-over of the factory was a sop to get the torpedo contract.
On 5th July, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in order to find out some of the facts about the takeover of the factory. We had been assured that the firm had been given incentives to take over the factory and to try to make it a going concern. However, I received a reply to my letter yesterday, from which I am surprised to learn that:
"The factory and machinery were acquired by the firm from Ministry of Defence as a normal commercial transaction and the terms of sale are therefore confidential. No invest-
346
ment grants were paid and in the circumstances there can be no question of imposing any restriction on the company's right to dispose of the property as it sees fit. Nor, as they have not received assistance under the Local Employment Acts in respect of the Alexandria project, are they under any obligation to provide continuing employment there."
Today, two telegrams were sent to the Secretary of State for Defence by the Provost of Dumbarton and the County Convenor of Dunbartonshire, urging that
"… all steps possible be taken for manufacture of this torpedo to be carried out at Plessey's factory at Alexandria to prevent closure of factory and alleviate unemployment in West Dunbartonshire."
In The Times yesterday there was a full-page advertisement, saying:
"We, the undersigned, are convinced that British membership of the enlarged E.E.C. will provide unequalled opportunities for expansion of investment and production in Britain. … The opportunity for growth will mean more jobs and greater prosperity for all in Britain."
One of the signatories was Sir John Clark, the managing director of Plessey. What happy reading this makes in West Dunbartonshire.
If the Plessey board has any social conscience, it should employ the people of the Vale of Leven to do the work, instead of closing the doors of this large factory. If the Government mean what they say about unemployment in Scotland, they should insist that Plessey carries out this advanced project in the factory where it was born.
10.40 p.m.
Mr. William Hamilton: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and other hon. Members have rightly and properly concentrated primarily on the future of U.C.S. I hope that every Scottish Member is concerned about it. We are not by any means convinced that the Government are telling us the whole truth. My hon. Friend was right to impress on the House and on the country the importance of a Select Committee of Inquiry of this House. Clearly the Government have no intention of giving us the truth voluntarily. That being so, this House must use its own machinery to do the job which the Government, for one reason or another, do not want done.
I refer not only to U.C.S. but to the squalid plan for dismemberment which the Under-Secretary put to the Tory Party

347
before the election. We do not know where that originated or what happened to it. We do not know whether it was the declared intention of the Tory Party to dismantle U.C.S., irrespective of what else might happen. We do not know what took place concerning Rolls-Royce. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) has referred to the torpedo factory and Plessey. These are three prime cases about which the House and the country ought to know all the facts, but we are not getting them.
The Government were elected to give honest and open government. We are getting more secrecy than the Ku Klux Klan. They are not telling us anything. We have to drag things out of them. We do not know what the report of the advisers will produce tomorrow or the next day. But, whatever it produces, whatever condemnation it might contain of the previous Government, this House and the country have a right to know where the trouble started, who started it, and the people who caused it ought to be brought to account in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
The Ministers say "Hear, hear". All right. Is that tantamount to saying that they will publish the advisers' report? Is that tantamount to saying that they will publish the full Ridley Report on the dismantling and dismemberment of U.C.S.? Is that tantamount to saying that they will appoint a Select Committee to get to the root of all these troubles and closures? Or are they content merely to appoint a receiver? Is this the key man in the development of Scotland of the future?
I want to spread my wings a little. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) mentioned the problems of Dundee. I want to come a little further south, but keep on the east side of Scotland. Before doing so, I want to put the problem of Scottish unemployment as a whole in perspective.
The average monthly unemployment figure for the first six months of 1971 is more than 122,000 in Scotland. In only one post-war year in the whole of Scotland's unemployment history has the monthly average exceeded 100,000. That was 1963, the twelfth year of that Tory
348
Government. It was then 104,800. My guess is that by the end of 1971 the monthly average will have gone up to 130,000.
The monthly average of male unemployment in the first few months of 1971 has been running at 95,000. But more startling and stark than that figure is the comparison between the number out of work and the number of unfilled vacancies.
Going back to May, 1954, there were 38,700 on the dole and a total of 10,300 vacancies. In other words, there were three to four unemployed seeking every job available. In May, 1964–10 years on, all under the Tory Government—there were 56,200 on the dole and 5,000 vacancies or 11 unemployed seeking every job available. In May, 1969, under the Labour Government, when unemployment certainly rose, there were 60,600 male unemployed and 9,000 vacancies, or I vacancy for every 6 or 7 unemployed. In April, 1971, there were 99,300 male unemployed and 4,400 vacancies, or I vacancy for every 23 or 24 unemployed. That is the measure of the failure of the Tory Government to tackle the problem.
That was one reason for the panic measures announced last week by the Chancellor. They received a cool reception in Scotland, because they will do nothing during the next 12 months to solve Scotland's problem. The Prime Minister opened a Tory garden fete at the weekend. That is where the Prime Minister makes his controversial speeches. He has full protection at a Tory Party garden fete. There is no question of his getting lynched at a Tory Party garden fête. Only there dare he utter the kind of nonsense that he uttered at the weekend—that this was a carefully planned operation and that this was the third Budget which had been planned as long ago as June, 1970. Three Budgets in 12 months! If the Prime Minister had said that in Glasgow we could not have been answerable for his fate.
The Prime Minister was saying that Scotland's 134,000 unemployed were all part of the long-term Tory plan, because it was that unemployment that enabled the Chancellor to tell the House, "We are jolly good chaps. We have now created the unemployment which enables me to get rid of hire purchase controls and

349
reduce purchase tax". That will earn three cheers from every one of the 134,000 unemployed and from everyone in U.C.S. who does not know when the axe will fall or where it will fall.
I turn from the question of U.C.S. and from the national problem to a specific case which has been worrying me in Glenrothes. Here we have second-generation industries. They are the industries of the future. We prided ourselves on the fact that in Fife we had the largest electronics industry in Europe. This was a very welcome big investment to take over from the declining coal industry. Elliott Automation came there in the 1960s. It was taken over by English Electric in 1968 and became known as Marconi-Elliott. Subsequently some manufacturing was transferred to Witham in England but not so much as to cause undue concern. Then there was a merger with G.E.C., which planned to expand at Glenrothes in 1970. The plans did not materialise. There was a sudden deterioration in the semiconductors business. United Kingdom factories were faced with a flood of cheap imported circuits of the standard type which arrived in very large quantities from low-cost assembly plants in areas such as Hong Kong and Singapore.
I received a letter only today in reply to one I sent him a week or so ago giving the facts as they saw them. On 8th July, 1971, G.E.C. notified the unions of the intention to close the Glenrothes factory—these are the new industries of the future. G.E.C. pointed out that the total value of orders received for the Glenrothes and Witham factories between March and May, 1971, had fallen by 55 per cent. from the previous low levels of orders between December, 1970, and February, 1971. As well as the fall in orders there was a big fall in the average selling price for United Kingdom manufactured devices, in some cases by almost 50 per cent.
G.E.C. therefore decided to phase out the Glenrothes factory in the course of the next few months and concentrate their production at Wembley and Lincoln. The 80 or so hourly-paid employees will be offered jobs in Kirkcaldy in their other telecommunications factories. But there is no hope of employing the staff of 60 skilled technicians and these valuable
350
teams of trained technical people may well disperse, to the great disadvantage of them and the nation.
I put a question to the Government yesterday about the dumping of units manufactured in Hong Kong, Singapore and elsewhere. The Minister replied in rather quaint language. He said there was no dumping in the legal sense. I do not know in what other sense there can be dumping. Will he tell us the "illegal" way of dumping? It is difficult to prove dumping.
Did the Government know about these developments at G.E.C. a month or two ago, that G.E.C. were intending to concentrate their manufacturing facilities at Wembley and Lincoln? If so, what pressure did they bring on the company to concentrate in Glenrothes? What has happened is counter to the policy the previous Government were committed to—preventing that kind of concentration in the South-East and the Midlands.
Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the hon. Member not see that the very policy of the previous Government in encouraging mergers of firms like G.E.C. created the situation such as he is faced with today? It is precisely because of the policy of encouraging industrial mergers conducted by the right hon. Member for Bristol South-East (Mr. Benn) that so many of these cases have happened.
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman knows nothing about it. The merger had nothing whatever to do with this case. The American space programme was running down and the major cutback led to diminished demand for these products which affected production in this country. The Americans then flooded our market with low-priced units from Singapore and Hong Kong and this created the present situation. This would have happened whether or not there had been a merger. The Minister knows that very well. It is supply and demand rather than any question of whether or not there was a merger. But if there is a reduced demand, the Government should ensure that that demand is concentrated in development areas, instead of allowing it to go to Wembley. The Government have a commitment to interfere to stop that kind of thing.
The Electronics Weekly, a non-political trade publication, said in the editorial in

351
its issue of a fortnight ago, headed "G.E.C. Go Out of the Game":
"G.E.C.'s withdrawal from the standard, high-volume integrated circuit business is the first major British casualty of the semiconductor price war, and the electronics industry's first victim of the ground rules introduced by the Conservative Government.
On the semiconductor industry's growing roll of the fallen, G.E.C.—despite retaining some specialised activities—must now be counted among the honoured names of those who failed to make it. For despite all the effort that was exerted, the downward spiral of both prices and demand proved too costly an experience to be borne."
The comment continues:
"But is seems to have been a Government decision not to support the British microelectronics companies with tariff protection that finally decided G.E.C. to cut their losses. Market forces have been allowed to have free play.

SCOTLAND (UNEMPLOYMENT)

  CASE FOR SUPPORT
  The implications of this for the future will be considerable. If British electronics companies wish to establish themselves in any new area of technology, it appears they must do it alone. 'Go ahead,' the message seems to run, 'nobody's stopping you.' But nobody's helping you either."
  The "stand on your own feet" philosophy—and if you are a lame duck, it is just too bad for Scotland.
  The comment went on:
  "We do not believe that industry should be permanently proposed up by artificial means but during the formative stages of a new technology there can be strong arguments for some form of official support. Similarly, the years while a market is being created often call for carefully chosen protection, just as young plants need to be sheltered from the frost.
  There need be nothing enfeebling about such support and such protection. They can be seen operating very effectively in both of the world's leading electronics nations—the U.S.A. and Japan.
  But somehow, for all the talk and heart-searching, this country has failed to find the key to prosperity in semiconductors. When the marks for this particular game come to be added up, we fear that everyone will receive a low score. Government, manufacturers, customers—there have been no really sparkling performers, and it can only be hoped that something has been learned for when the next game comes to be played."
  That rather lengthy quote from a trade publication shows something of the challenge which this Government must meet. They cannot sit on the sidelines and watch these young new industries being destroyed. In areas like Fife, where we have lost our old industry—coal—we depend
  352
  on these new industries more than most areas. Therefore, the psychological blow of their being destroyed is all the greater.
  I beg the Government to have some sense of their responsibility and not to be deceived and blinded by their own dogma. They should recognise that they cannot allow the blind forces of the market free rein, that they must intervene—for humane and social reasons as well as for good sound economic reasons.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: I had not intended to take part in the debate because I was under the impression that we were at this stage to discuss the position of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and the situation on Clydeside. But the area of debate has been somewhat widened, and the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), for example, has referred to some of the problems of my constituency. I shall come to his comments in a few minutes. I have been somewhat provoked, also, by some of the comments made by hon. Members opposite. Listening to them, one might gain the impression that an unemployment problem suddenly arose overnight in Scotland on 18th June last year. In fact, as they and everyone else in Scotland know, that is far from the truth.
  On the question of U.C.S., the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) made one observation which seemed to me to have an element of attraction when he urged the case for the setting up of a Select Committee. I hope that if we were to do that it would manage to unveil for us precisely what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) meant when he went to Clydeside in the summer of 1969 and delivered that famous speech, which was, I think, fairly characterised by the Scottish Daily Express as giving the message, "Not a penny more".
  That was the right hon. Gentleman's message at that time, and it makes a pretty odd contrast with the antics in which he has been indulging in recent weeks. I hazard the guess—I have hazarded it outside the House, so I see no reason for not repeating it here—that, had it not been for the occurrence of a by-election in the Gorbals constituency, the right hon. Gentleman would have

  353
  stuck by what he said in the summer of 1969 and would have ensured that the bankruptcy of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders occurred in the autumn of 1969 and not when it did.
  Hon. Members opposite have emphasised the seriousness of the employment situation on Clydeside now. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State could tell us whether it is a fact that the other yards on the Clyde, Yarrow's and Lower Clyde, are crying out to recruit labour, and, further, whether it is a fact that there are elements among the trade unions on the Upper Clyde who have indicated to any present employees of U.C.S. that if they should consider applying for jobs with Yarrow's or with Lower Clyde they would do so at risk to their families. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] These reports are circulating. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] They are circulating in Scotland. I shall be very interested to hear whether right hon. and hon. Members opposite can produce evidence to refute——
  Mr. Norman Buchan: It is your smear.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: —the reports that other shipyards on the Clyde are crying out for labour at the present time and explain why they are unable to recruit such labour.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: The hon. Gentleman is repeating filthy tittle tattle for which there is not a jot of evidence and then asking hon. Gentlemen on this side to refute it. guarantees that the stories recirculate. by making the point in his speech he guarantees that the stories re-circulate. The truth is, and the hon. Gentleman knows this very well, that the only meaning of his argument is that there are employers in Lower Clyde who would like to see higher unemployment on the Clyde so that they could get some people recruited from there. That is the only merit of his argument. Beyond that he is simply engaging in the spreading of a rumour designed in some way to weaken those who are fighting for their right to work in Upper Clyde shipyards.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: What I asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to refute was——
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman. What I asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to refute was that Yarrow's and Lower Clyde were seeking to recruit employees and were unable to do so. I asked how they explained this situation in a condition of serious unemployment.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not intend to withdraw.
  Mr. Hughes rose——
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I do not want to delay the House much longer. I do want to deal with——
  Mr. Hughes: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point——
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman must allow me to make my own speech.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman should stop making assertions——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman does not give way the hon. Member must not seek to intervene.
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Assertions have been made which refer to the workers and management in an area which I and other of my hon. Friends represent. If we cannot answer these now I hope that we will be given an opportunity later of dealing with them.
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I want to turn briefly to the situation on Tayside. The hon. Member for Dundee, West referred to this. Listening to the hon. Gentleman, I would not have thought that he was a supporter of a Government which introduced the quota system for imports of jute goods, which as he well knows has been one of the factors—I do not say the only one—which has resulted in the difficulties facing the jute industry.
  Mr. Doig: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the jute industry asked for the quota system? He made no objection to this.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I am well aware of what happened at the time. The Government of the day decided to make the change and, broadly speaking, the largest firms in the industry saw certain advantages for them in the new scheme. It was made quite clear at the time by a number of people, including me, that it would create problems in some of the smaller firms and this is what has happened.
  Mr. Douglas: That was in 1964.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It was not, it was in 1969.
  I do not want to delay the House much longer, but I do want to refer to what was said about the extension of S.D.A. privileges, if that is the right word, in the Tayside region. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Lord Provost of Arbroath as supporting this proposition. I have made it clear to the Lord Provost that I would not support him in his approach, basically for two reasons. The first is because the hon. Gentleman overlooks the differential disadvantage which is applied through the S.D.A. scheme to existing employers in an area which receives S.D.A. rights. A payroll subsidy can obviously present considerable competitive disadvantages to established firms in an area which are not able to enjoy that subsidy themselves. I believe that we should consider not only the desirability of bringing new industry into an area but also the desirability of furthering the position of industry already there.
  I am prepared to concede that the existence of special development area privileges in West Central Scotland puts Tayside at a competitive disadvantage in attracting new industry. The corollary of that is that if Tayside were made a special development area there would be demands from other parts of Scotland which would find themselves disadvantaged not only against Clydeside but also against Tayside. So it would go on and one would get a more and more unwieldy system of incompatible incentives.
  The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) referred to the argument that a reduction in the differential in favour of development areas results from the increase in the first-year allowances. We accept that there is a limited reduction in differential is implied, but he overlooks
  356
  the fact that first-year allowances do not apply to plant and investment in the qualifying factory, but that the machinery may well come from a development area. I can well see, for example, that machine tool manufacturers in my constituency could benefit from the increase in first-year allowances.
  It is a mistake to assume that any limited erosion—and it is very limited—of the differential in favour of first-year allowances for the development areas is entirely negative for them. In so far as they are producing capital goods which go to investment in non-development areas, it may be a positive advantage to them in encouraging additional manufacturing investment. That is the other side of the situation. The problem of unemployment in Scotland is to a large extent a reflection of the success of the last Government's policies in destroying the profitability of British industry through their taxation system and thereby destroying the ability to invest and adding to the erosion of profit margins through the tax system the destruction of profit margins through the inflationary stampede they set going in their last 18 months of office. It is not good enough for hon. Members opposite now to turn round and complain about the consequences of those policies.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: I thank you for calling me after the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have taken part in a debate on unemployment and the industrial situation in Scotland, for I have been dealing with other sectors of the Scottish scene and have left these matters to my comrades and colleagues.
  I am impelled to intervene after some of the remarks of the hon. Member for South Angus. Despite the position which he regards himself as holding in the Conservative Party, he must learn that that kind of unsubstantiated smear is condemned by most decent people inside and outside the House. I had thought that what was wrong with the hon. Member was lack of heart; after listening to the last few minutes of his views on economics, I think that he is suffering from lack of head as well. If he does not understand the damage that remarks

  357
  of that kind do, it is time that he did. We are dealing with a serious situation and we do not have time for frivolity, or callousness, or smears, and that is what we have had.
  As it happens, I represent the area to which the hon. Member referred, the Lower Clyde, the shipbuilders of the Lower Clyde, and very proud they are too, of Glasgow and Greenock. I remember speaking at the factory gate at the time both my right hon. Friends were having discussions two or three years ago about the future of the Upper Clyde. What the lads were asking me was quite simply, "Are you giving them the money so that Upper Clyde can continue?" They were not saying, as some others did, "Do not bother about giving them the money, so that we may be in a better competitive position".
  Mr. Douglas: I hesitate to advise my hon. Friend, but the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that the employers on the Lower Clyde made certain allegations about the trade unions. Would my hon. Friend care to pursue that?
  Mr. Buchan: I shall come to that. I wished first to relate the attitude of the people with whom I am inevitably most concerned, the workers. I can tell the hon. Member that the kind of solidarity that the Upper Clyde requires will be forthcoming from the workers of the Lower Clyde.
  I have a good deal of consultation with the workers and I have never heard anything which would substantiate the hon. Members' unwarranted and unnecessary smear. I hope that he will withdraw it because he has no basis for it, although it was not untypical of the kind of thing we are getting from the Government. We now have the most reactionary Government for the last century and a half and the most callous. They were elected on a fraud, the fraud that they would cut unemployment at a stroke. They have perpetuated themselves on the myth that all the problems were being caused by the workers' demands, and now they are trying to sustain themselves on the illusion that their problems will be solved by entering the Common Market. I want to deal with all of those.
  358
  The Under-Secretary will recall the unemployment figures in the London evening newspapers on the day of the election. The promise to cut unemployment at a stroke was clearly one of the most telling factors which secured the election victory on 18th June, last year, and the hon. Member for South Angus should recall 18th June, for it is a very important date. Since then we have had the kind of unemployment figures which Scotland has not seen since the 1930s. Now it is July and we have to take on board the young people who have left school and never worked.
  I know what I am talking about, for I represent an area where there has been a long history of unemployment. I remember becoming a candidate in the winter of 1962–63 and finding to my horror 11 per cent. unemployment in Port Glasgow. But that figure is repeated in area after area in Scotland today. A breakdown of the figures shows that not only are more people unemployed, but more people are unemployed for longer periods. The number of those unemployed for more than six months is increasing drastically and the number of unemployed for more than 12 months is increasing drastically. This is the tragedy, not the tragedy of unemployment for three, four, or five weeks as people shift from job to job, but the creation of long-term hard-core unemployment, and I wish that the Under-Secretary who has a certain responsibility in the matter would pay a little attention.
  Many of us on this side believe that what we are discussing tonight has its origins not in the problem involved in the exchange of letters in October and November last year, but the year before in the document starting from the hon. Gentleman himself. That document outlined the butchery of the Upper Clyde. Almost all the changes have been brought about by events. This is one way in which we can judge attitudes. We know the document, and when we know that the changes which it is said to contain have in each and every case been carried out, this is the difference between allegation based upon experience and facts and the kind of smear that we got from the hon. Gentleman.
  One of the reasons why we would like to have a public inquiry into the whole

  359
  question of U.C.S. is that we want to know what kind of rôle the hon. Gentleman's document played in this. I want to know, for example, to whom it was sent. The Secretary of State for Scotland says that he never saw it. If he did not get it, this shows with what contempt the Conservative Party treated regional Ministers. Either the right hon. Gentleman saw it or he did not. If he did not see it, this shows how the party opposite played down its importance. Even that is indicative of the Government, because they have no concern for the regions, since the tasks and the problems concerning the regions cut across their ideology.
  The measures announced a week ago were not measures of a Government concerned. They were the measures of a Government in panic. This has been the problem of the Government. The fraud was that they would cut unemployment. The myth was that high prices and inflation were due to the demands of the workers. Absolutely no evidence has been brought forward by the Government Front Bench. Hon. Friends of mine have been asking for it for a year. What is the evidence that wage demands have caused unemployment?
  Speculation we have had from the Prime Minister until we are sick of hearing it. There has been not an ounce of evidence that the demands of the workers have caused unemployment. When we look from situation to situation, it is in precisely those areas, regions and industries where there is no problem that we face the higher unemployment.
  I know what is causing unemployment. Unemployment breeds on unemployment, because as soon as a pool of unemployment is created there is no longer need for an employer to hold on to his labour force, since he knows that if expansion comes, there will be a pool from which he can get his labour. Therefore, the moment that unemployment begins to rise—and it has risen dramatically, by 20 or 25 per cent. over the last 12 months—employers add to it by shedding their labour. This is the problem, and the Government have not faced it.
  A week ago we got the panic measures of reflation. We all know—because it was predicted that it would happen—that the Government were worried that they
  360
  were not carrying public opinion with them to take us into the Common Market. Because of this, the panic measures were brought forward. But whom will they assist? They may do something in the areas which satisfy consumer needs—they may or they may not. A lot will depend upon how much industrialists believe that the Government can go in for sustained expansion.
  Much will depend upon how many industrialists are not investing because they intend to wait and invest in Europe instead. I have never heard such nonsense as the reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) tonight that investors in Europe will come to invest in Dundee to make things here so that they can send them back to Europe. What economic nonsense this is. That is another reason why we may not get the right results from reflation.
  What we are clear about is that there is nothing here to assist the regions. The hon. Member for South Angus advances the spurious argument that demand in these areas will be assisted by the improved depreciation, pushed up to 80 per cent.; that that will cause a river of demand for capital goods in the regions. The truth is that investment in the regions has been given a disincentive because there is now only a 20 per cent. difference in the free depreciation in the regions and that elsewhere.
  So we come to the problem of the Upper Clyde. In a day or two we shall get an announcement from the Government, and we are all waiting for it. If the Government do not announce that the entire yards on the Clyde will be maintained on the basis of the existing labour force, there will not be disappointment or hopelessness, but the kind of bitter anger which this class-ridden Government cannot conceive. The Government have made the class struggle respectable.
  That is what the Government will face. The shop stewards are already saying that if that is not the case they are prepared to occupy the yards. There will be very few people in Scotland who will be prepared to condemn such action, because many of them will say that those yards belong to the workers every bit as much as they belong to the management. We

  361
  hear of pre-emptive claims to possession, and it is to this kind of thing that we need an answer.
  First, I ask the Government to recognise the bitterness and anger there is in Scotland and give this pledge to maintain the U.C.S. They may not like doing so, I know it goes against their dogmas, but let them look at the cost—that will appeal. They are always concerned with cash. Let them set the cost of redundancy payments, unemployment payments, and the rest, against the injection of the measly sum needed here to keep U.C.S. going. I think that the Government have even got their cash account wrong. In addition to saving money, they will be building ships and helping the balance of payments and, above all, giving some kind of sustained hope.
  Second, we demand an inquiry. The hon. Member for South Angus has said he would welcome an inquiry because it would expose the statement of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn). If that is the case, let the hon. Gentleman use his position of political power to press the Government to hold such an inquiry. We would welcome it.
  Third, I hope that if the Government are not prepared to have a public inquiry, the people of the Clyde will themselves hold a public inquiry—and put the Government in the dock.
  11.28 p.m.
  Mr. Tarn Dalyell: Most of my hon. Friends have a far greater knowledge of Upper Clyde than I have and can speak with far greater authority, but I want to ask one question not only for the West of Scotland but for Scotland.
  When the news of the Upper Clyde difficulties broke, the Government, with a degree of self-pity that some of us found less than attractive, said: "We did not know. We were only given 48 or 72 hours warning." What is being done within the Government machine to see that such a situation never occurs again and that the Government are never again confronted with the same kind of sudden crisis? This has not been explained. We would like to know what is being done to improve the Government machine in this respect.
  362
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) and I both wanted to speak on unemployment, and my subject was originally unemployment among youth, but eloquently from this side the case has been made. It is appalling to see young people between 15 and 17 years of age starting on their working lives without the prospect of a job—nothing is more appalling.
  I want to put forward a constructive idea. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) and I have been having a long correspondence with the Ministry of Defence on the subject of the very vast trading facilities at Caledonia and Rosyth. I confess to a constituency interest, since a West Lothian county councillor who is a civilian instructor in Dunfermline was paid off last week. His job, like the jobs of a number of other instructors, is coming to an end. It seems crazy when there is the present degree of youth unemployment, to run down an establishment that is military in name but which we all know in fact has trained a large number of boys for skilled civilian work throughout Scotland. Can the Scottish Office and the Department of Employment talk seriously to the Navy Ministers and ask them whether it is sensible to do this, at this stage in our history, to the considerable training facilities that exist there?
  My speech can be cut short, because much of what I had to say was so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) on the electronics industry. As one who represents Plesseys, I know only too well that what he said was in no way exaggerated. We look forward to hearing what is said in a later debate by the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry on the dumping of microcircuits. But it is not just the question of microcircuits that will be raised by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison). It goes much deeper than that. There is a crisis in the electronics industry as a whole, and not only the British electronics industry. I am not looking for miracle solutions, but I too ask for an inquiry about Alexandria.
  We in the east of Scotland also have an interest in this, because we had hoped during the early 1960s to be a European centre for the techniques of numerical

  363
  control. There were very high hopes built up at Dalkeith, where many of my constituents work. That is known to the Government and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), because he was intimately involved in what looked like a very hopeful operation. I did not quarrel with the transfer of that technology for Mid Lothian and West Lothian to the West Coast, because I thought it was rational and it had our good will. What does not have our good will is the fact that numerical control techniques seem to have been run down in Scotland to zero. When we consider the potential power for good of those techniques, and the tremendous burgeoning that could take place, particularly in the context of European industry, we feel that it is tragic that this should have happened.
  Moreover, we know very well that considerable sums of Government money are involved. This alone justifies the request for a public inquiry, apart from the assurances that the numerical control techniques would be kept up. I do not want to do any harm to the British electronics industry. Journalists writing in serious Press have made the case very powerfully. This is a case that the Government must answer.
  On and on, we have continued the tragic saga of Rolls-Royce. Sometimes it looks hopeful and sometimes it does not. I have a specific question that Government must now answer. They were asked to submit evidence to the Senate Banking Committee. For good or bad reason, apparently they refused to do so. There is an obligation to explain to the country why that request was refused, because it seems to some of us that the refusal could be very harmful to our interests. Those who represent Rolls-Royce subcontractors are now acutely worried about what will happen. Whatever happens on 6th August or 8th August, there is no indication of any contingency planning if things do not turn out in the way we all hope they will. Therefore, if things go wrong—and I hope that they will not—in mid-August or early September, it will be a dereliction of duty for the Government not to produce some kind of contingency plan. I hope that they are having discussions with other people who might use
  364
  the products of the Rolls-Royce subcontractors. This is neither the time nor the place to go into detail as to who those people are; the Minister knows perfectly well who they are. I beg the Government to have some clear contingency plan in case things do not turn out as they hope.
  11.35 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh McCartney: I shall not go over the many excellent points made by my hon. Friends and I will try to be as brief as possible in view of the time, but I must refer to the long history of industrial decline in Clydebank, Cumbernauld and other parts of East Dunbartonshire since the General Election last year. It is no accident that it has occurred in view of the declared economic and industrial policies of the Tory Party prior to the election and the evident desire by Ministers to introduce such policies sine; they were elected. It is clear that unless these policies are changed, and unless the Government accept the error of their ways, there is no hope of restoring the position in Scotland in general and in the areas which have been mentioned in particular, including Clydebank and Dunbarton, where there are very high levels of unemployment. The position in these areas is becoming alarming.
  It is not wrong to keep emphasising the "lame ducks" statement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry because it crystallises the feelings of the hierarchy of the Tory Central Office and of Ministers. I met the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in London last year in the late autumn or early winter—I cannot remember which it was; the climatic conditions were mild at that time if nothing else was—to discuss the redundancies at the Singer Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Also present were representatives of the Scottish T.U.C. and of the Clydebank town council, shop stewards of the company and officials from the trade unions involved in the problem. It was clear that the Under-Secretary had little or no sympathy for the workers who were losing their jobs, for their families or for the social consequences of the redundancies and others which would follow.
  The only crumb of comfort from that meeting and the several other meetings

  365
  which took place in connection with the Singer and U.C.S. troubles and other troubles which have flowed from the Government's policy was the decision to demolish the Babcock and Wilcox factory and to build three advance factories on the site with a gross area of 100,000 square feet.
  I visited that site on Saturday morning. Although the demolition has taken place, very little has been done in building the advance factories. I urge the Minister to encourage the people who have been given the contract to get on with the work as rapidly as possible. Advance factories are very welcome. Successive Labour Governments urged the building of advance factories to attract industry to Scotland. They were one of the main things which brought new industries and the new technological industries to Scotland. Unless the Government introduce policies which will encourage manufacturers to take up the advance factories, there is little or no point in building them. I hope that the Government will not use that as an argument for not spending money in this way, as they have done in the past.
  One argument that is being used is that because advance factories are being built, there is no need to worry about employment of workers in U.C.S. However, I do not believe that we should look at the advance factories there or elsewhere in the development area as an alternative. The U.C.S. should be regarded as a comprehensive complex. These advance factories and any industry that is introduced must be regarded as supplementary to the existing industry. Every effort must be made to ensure the well-being of those existing industries.
  Yesterday in the Scotsman it was reported that for Scotland the unemployment figures were 134,500—some 6·2 per cent. of the employable population. The hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that these unemployment figures did not suddenly arise. I ask him to cast back his mind to February, 1963, when under a Tory Government similar disastrous unemployment figures were recorded. At that time they blamed a bad winter. We now have even worse figures than were recorded in February, 1963, and we have not suffered a bad winter, spring or summer. What
  366
  we are suffering is a bad Government. The sooner we realise this the better. Certainly the electors, if given the opportunity, will tell the Government so.
  I received a reply from the Department of Employment on 1st July this year which showed that in the Clydebank employment exchange area there were 2,376 unemployed males registered at June, 1971 compared with 1,522 in June, 1970. The percentage rates of male unemployment in the Glasgow travel-to-work area, which includes Clydebank, were 9·5 and 6·8 respectively for these periods.
  I should like to refer to what was said on this matter of redundancies by Jack McGill of the Scottish Daily Express. We may disagree with McGill's interpretation of events, but I am sure we will agree that this respected reporter has his ear to the ground and generally speaking enjoys all the leaks going. If Jack McGill is correct on this occasion in referring to some 2,000 redundancies in U.C.S., then evidently the unemployment figure on Clydebank will rise alarmingly. Since some of the people employed in this area are from the contiguous area of Dunbartonshire, from Scotstoun, Govan and other places, the figures in those areas will be seriously affected.
  The delegation of the Scottish T.U.C. which met the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry were disappointed and dismayed. And they are not the only people who will be disappointed. The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Secretary of State for Scotland and various other Government Ministers have received letters and deputations on this subject. Round robins and all kinds of pressures have come from the whole community in this area—from people who normally do not involve themselves in political or social issues. But the whole community in this area is rising in anger at what is to happen to U.C.S. and Clydebank. The Government said in the past that they did not wish to intervene in industry, but they have now intervened in such a way as to force U.C.S. into liquidation. We believe that where necessary Governments should intervene in the interests of the community, but in this instance Government intervention has

  367
  faced a large part of the shipbuilding industry with liquidation.
  In view of the change which has occurred since the U.C.S. difficulties first came to light, I believe that the Government should swallow their political pride and alter their attitude to U.C.S. with a view to helping it to continue as a viable unit. If they are prepared to do that, I am certain that no hon. Member on this side of the House nor any shop steward or trade union involved will make it embarrassing for them.
  I think that it was the Scotsman yesterday which reported that certain Scottish Labour Members intended carrying out their own inquiry and investigation. I do not know whether that is true. If it is, I do not know where the reporter got his information.
  However, when the Government reach a decision, it is to be hoped very soon, my view is that any inquiry should be instituted by the trade union movement in co-operation with the local authorities in the areas affected by any redundancies or closures. It is ironic that the Government who are opposed to industrial democracy may have started down a road which will result in the first real experiment in democracy in industry.
  It has been suggested that, if the Government decide to dismember U.C.S., to hive off any part of it, or to close any part of it, the trade unions will take over the yard and operate it until such time as the Government see sense. This is a clear indication that the point may soon be reached about which I have warned the Government on two previous occasions. I referred to this possibility first when the House was considering the Industrial Relations Bill, and I mentioned it again when we last debated U.C.S. The road that the Government are travelling with their social and economic policies may force workers to show that they can do a better job in co-operation with management than the Government have managed to do.
  In view of the new situation, with large-scale unemployment in Scotland, especially on Clydeside, I ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to swallow their political pride. They must ensure that U.C.S. is retained as a first-class shipbuilding unit, recognising the traditional skills which exist there. Specula-
  368
  tors are already poking their noses here and there, trying to smell out what profits are in it for them. They should be chased from the doorstep. The Clydebank Division especially should be maintained as an integral part of any new organisation which may be created following the report of the Government's four experts. Unless the Government accent the need to throw aside their doctrinaire ideas, all hell will be let loose on Clydeside, and they will have even greater trouble than they anticipate.
  Before I sit down, I want to compliment the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell) for his intervention in the course of these difficulties. He has visited the Clydebank Division. I welcomed his visit, and I know that the trade union movement as a whole, especially the shop stewards in the area, did the same. It was good to see a Conservative Member entering a shipyard sincerely trying to discover its problems. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot fight our political battles in his own party, especially in this House, but I hope that his conversations with Ministers following his visit will have some effect on the decisions that the Government have to make.
  I also heard that the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office, paid a visit to the Clydeside division of U.C.S. I do not know what his attitude was or what his suggestions were to the Government. However, I am sure that unless he declares himself on the side of the U.C.S. workers for the retention of U.C.S. as a complete unit, and the Government accept that position, he and many other Tory Members will be looking for other jobs after the next General Election.
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. James Hamilton: I want to follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) about the article in the Scottish Daily Express. A similar article also appeared in the Glasgow Evening Citizen, which is part of the same combine. I am prepared to state categorically that this seems to be the way that the Government work. They have allowed this matter to leak, and events may prove that the 2,000 workers

  369
  mentioned in the Scottish Daily Express and the Glasgow Evening Citizen will become a reality.
  This Government seem to make all their statements either at garden fetes or at the opening of new roads which were constructed under the direction of the Labour Government. They do not seem to be capable of making these statements in the House.
  The Lanarkshire Development Council has tried hard to arrange a meeting with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, but so far he has not indicated that he is prepared to meet this responsible body.
  I do not subscribe to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East who has congratulated some hon. Gentlemen opposite because they met the workers of U.C.S. If they have constituents working in the yards or in factories where there are redundancies, they have a moral obligation to meet them and to explain what the Government's policy is. In a similar situation, I should be prepared to meet the employer and workers who sent me to do a job for them in the House of Commons. On that basis, we are only carrying out to the full the views and the realisations of the people who placed a great deal of trust in us when they elected us at the General Election.
  We talk about unemployment on the basis of percentages and of records being broken by all Governments. One of the sad features of this situation is that Scotland has over 16,000 unemployed in the construction industry. That is an indictment against any Government, especially as a tremendous number of houses are required to be built to house people in great need of decent accommodation. Power stations are also urgently required. In this situation, with construction workers signing on at the labour exchanges, obviously the effect on our economy must be extremely serious. It is not only that we have 16,000 craftsmen signing on; we have to take into consideration the ancillary grades which do not get employment because the craftsmen are unemployed.
  I find it nauseating that in Lanarkshire 8·3 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed. Of 8,000 youngsters who left school at the summer holiday period, to the best of my knowledge, 6,000 will
  370
  be on the dole, on the scrap heap. It is possible that at least 2,000 of them will take advantage of further education. Unfortunately, the facilities are not available for them to take full advantage of further training. The Government should apply their minds to the question of technical training. A training centre is being run down in Lanarkshire. This does not benefit the country. I have written to ask Lord Melchett of the British Steel Corporation to give me a full report on the situation as regards this training centre. Its closure will mean not only that the instructors will be seeking other employment but also that the reservoir of trained personnel will not be coming forward. I hope that they will not be needed in the foreseeable future to add to the impetus to all industries which the Government claim are coming to Scotland.
  In the Common Market debate the Secretary of State for Employment stated that the Government were opening new training centres throughout the country. In reply to a question from me he was unable to say how many training centres would be opened in Scotland. I understand that no new training centres are envisaged for Scotland.
  Every hon. Member on this side must be deeply concerned on the question of U.C.S. Many of my constituents work at U.C.S. I hope that U.C.S. will not be sold down the river. The Government have a representative on the board of U.C.S. and it is unbelievable that he could not have given the information to the Minister responsible so that the Minister could have informed the House. We received only three days notice of the situation in U.C.S.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is asking for a special inquiry into the question of U.C.S. This question should be thoroughly investigated and at the end of the day the House should be informed of what the Government are playing at.
  Rolls-Royce concerns everyone in my part of the country. If Rolls-Royce is not redeemed, and if a solution to the Rolls-Royce situation is not found, unemployment in Lanarkshire, which is now 8·3 per cent., could easily become 11 per cent. I do not seek to spread despondency. I merely state a fact of life. The Government have a moral obligation to

  371
  take action. The 136,000 unemployed that we had in 1963 under the Tory Government is a record of which they cannot be proud. We do not doubt that this record will be beaten before 1971 is out.
  It is safe to say that we will reach 150,000. If anyone thinks the measures introduced by the Chancellor on Monday will be a short-term answer, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. In view of the high unemployment in my constituency and the rest of Scotland, there was no joy in Bellshill when the Chancellor told us that a £20 suit would cost 30p less. There was no rush to the tailor's to get new suits because most of my constituents, even those who are working, are not making the sort of money to be able to rush and buy a £20 suit just because the Chancellor has reduced the purchase tax on it by 30p.
  None of my people are deeply concerned about buying refrigerators, and they are not intending to buy Jaguar cars. Will the Government tell the people of Scotland what they intend to do for a change? Have they written Scotland off? Have they decided that because Scotland renounced them at the last General Election they are not going to give them any consideration? If they do not tell the people what they intend to do, then obviously we in Scotland are entitled to do something sensational. If we do something sensational, hon. Members should bear in mind that the people are far better educated now than their forebears were in the 1930's. We will know how to adapt ourselves to this situation. I hope when the Minister replies he will answer many of the questions we have put to him this evening.
  12.1 a.m.
  Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn: I intervene very briefly because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will be winding up for the Opposition. I wanted to deal with one or two points made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who totally misrepresented the position. The attitude of the previous Government, in which I had responsibility for shipbuilding, was dictated by the economic and social considerations, and the suggestion that the Gorbals by-election had played any part
  372
  is totally false. He knows it to be false. Were there to be any evidence of truth in it, it would be the most massive act of political corruption ever performed in British political history. I would not have referred to it except that some people listening to the hon. Gentleman might have believed there was something in it. When he went on to say there were threats by the men concerned against the families, it simply proved that he has no contact with the people living in Clydeside.
  Quite without regard to the outcome of the Government's consideration of this matter, it has been motivated, in the opinion of myself and hon. Gentlemen who watch this, broadly by hostility to the Government's relations not only with industry but specifically with U.C.S. We have a Minister tonight whose document was the key to the whole Government policy. He has an opportunity to deny authorship of that document. But, in the absence of a clear denial, we know the sense of betrayal which the men working in U.C.S. have. It is derived from what he is believed to have said to his political colleagues in 1969.
  It is this more than anything else which has created the political crisis which lies behind the economic problems facing U.C.S. I wanted briefly in this context to refer to the Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, myself and others. In it we made it clear not only that public ownership was right for U.C.S. but also that the management and workers should jointly have been asked to prepare a development plan under public ownership, and that the details of the management pattern and structure of the company should have been accepted by the management and workers as a whole.
  The hon. Gentleman who is to wind up the debate is famous for seeing all economic and industrial problems in profit and loss terms. I must warn him that, in advocating this view, he is totally out of touch with modern thinking—not only of trade unionists and shop stewards but of the modern school of management. We have put forward a serious policy alternative to his view and it is from this that future thinking on industrial policy will derive. If the Minister will not give an inquiry, I hope that the trade unions will

  373
  take upon themselves the responsibility for examining the betrayal that the Government have perpetrated on this yard.
  12.5 a.m.
  Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I make no apology for detaining the House, because we have been very patient in listening to speeches from hon. Members who have found it inconvenient to wait for the end of the debate. I refer particularly to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne). I am surprised that my colleagues have let him off the hook, because he is not just the Member for South Angus: he is a P.P.S. at the Scottish Office and an office bearer in the Scottish Conservative Party in this House——
  Mr. Douglas: An office boy.
  Mr. Brown: He just seems like that: in fact he is an office bearer. People outside will assume that at least he is privy to some of the gossip and rumours—some perhaps with substance—that circulate in the Scottish Office.
  He has alleged that there have been threats to the families of those employed by Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. May I refresh the memory of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who may not have been here all through this debate, but who was certainly present during the debate on the Industrial Relations Bill? That Bill contains a specific change in the law relating to picketing. The Government maintained that there had been attempts to endanger people in their own homes during industrial disputes. Many hon. Members on this side took exception to that, because some of the allegations were not substantiated.
  But now, the hon. Member for South Angus makes categoric allegations—I am glad to see that he has returned to the Chamber—that trade unionists or the shop stewards in Upper Clyde were threatening the families of their own members if they dared to take jobs in Yarrows or in Lower Clyde. Is that a fair statement of what he said?
  Mr. James Hamilton: Get on your feet, man.
  Mr. Brown: If so, it is scandalous. Any of us with even a slight knowledge of the difficult situation of the trade unionists
  374
  in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders recognises that they are obviously anxious, at least until the Government indicate their views, to preserve the labour force in Upper Clyde. That is not unreasonable.
  Second, there is the problem of the different wage rates between Upper Clyde and Lower Clyde. We all recognise that the trade unions have problems in this regard, but that is vastly different from saying, as this hon. Member has said, that there have been physical threats, presumably of intimidation, against the families of those employed in Upper Clyde. Is he saying that, or did he lack his usual sophisticated command of language? Was he being too blunt? Does he speak for the Scottish Office?
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) rightly said recently that no one ever knew what he said in Cabinet. We would give him credit for this. Some of us think that sometimes he did not communicate enough about some of the broad considerations. I say this, as I think he knows, as a personal admirer of his. But if his P.P.S. had made statements like those of the hon. Member for South Angus, I reckon that my right hon. Friend would have had something to say about them—either to justify them or to refute them. So I am asking that someone—if there is anyone on the Government Front Bench at the moment with authority to speak on this matter—should either confirm or deny these allegations.
  There seems to have been a breakdown in the lines of communication between the four wise men and the shop stewards. There may be nothing in it, but it seems amazing and, to say the least, most regrettable, that in this delicate situation, when the shop stewards, I believe, had a clear understanding that they would at least be consulted before the four wise men gave their report to the Minister, all that has been overlooked, in spite of all the talk about taking people into confidence and maintaining communications. As I say, there may be no significance in it, and I do not suggest that there is, but the fact of that failure of communication leads on to the comments I have to make about the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who is to reply to the debate.

  375
  There is no suspicion which trade unionists in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders might have which would not be justified by a reading of some of his speeches in, for example, the Committee on the Post Office Bill in 1968 and 1969. I have been around in politics quite a bit, and I confess that I thought he was a joke. I did not think that he commanded any support in the Conservative Party. I honestly could not see the Tories being so crazy in 1970, in the unlikely event of their winning the election—admittedly, I did not expect them to win it, and I was wrong about that—as to appoint to office someone who was treated as a joke because his ideas were so "way out". Yet here he is.
  Whatever else may be said about the trade unionists of Clydeside, they can read. They can read some of the hon. Gentleman's speeches in the Committee on the Post Office Bill. The hon. Member for Howden was there as the Front Bench spokesman, and he knows what I am talking about. The reactionary views we heard from someone who is now a Minister were positively frightening, and in that setting one can understand the reaction of some of the people now concerned about the situation on the Clyde.
  There will not be a bloody revolution on Clydeside if there is depressing or disastrous news from the Government, but the Government must for their part recognise that there are people in the trade union movement and on this side of the House who see some advantage in drawing the attention of the country and, indeed, of the world to this glaring situation, a situation in which men want to work, there is a demand for the product of their work, and yet, for some reason or other of finance or because of the outdated monetary system which we have, we cannot organise affairs in such a way as to enable those people to work and create the wealth which they are able to create.
  We have taken a fairly long time in this debate, but we need not apologise for detaining the House. We are probably a day or two away from a Government statement, and this is a highly desirable time to impress upon them that they are playing with dynamite here. They have already shown that they are no longer a non-interventionist Govern-
  376
  ment and they cannot afford to pursue the doctrinaire ideologies of the Under-Secretary of State. Either he must go, or someone in the Government must make clear to the people of Clydeside that some of the serious social considerations will be taken into account when they make their decision.
  12.14 a.m.
  Mr. William Ross: We have had an interesting debate, interesting because we have once again had only one contribution from the Tory back benches. The hon. Gentleman concerned, the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), began by saying that he had not intended to intervene, but, after he had intervened, I think that most Members wondered why he had. It was no great help.
  A certain constitutional point arises out of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State for Scotland, and it is a pretty well known convention that the P.P.S. to the Secretary of State does not intervene in matters which touch the responsibilities of the Secretary of State. If there are two things concerning Scotland at the moment they are (a) unemployment and (b) U.C.S. To have the hon. Member for South Angus, who certainly does not know the area or very much about the people other than those he meets on his fleeting visits to television studios in and around Glasgow, telling us what is happening among the men and failing to give us one single piece of evidence to justify his statements is a serious matter for the Secretary of State.
  He is speaking as the man who knows the Secretary of State, how he thinks and acts, and what he says must reflect upon the right hon. Gentleman. We have had this smear about coercion and threats to families and the hon. Gentleman should have the guts and courage to get up and justify it. All we got is the hon. Member running away from the onus of proof. I do not call that courage, I have another name for it and it is something which I would associate with the rather supercilious and unreal presence in this House of the hon. Gentleman.
  He talked about my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East, but the hon. Gentleman was not here to

  377
  answer him. He has a happy knack of running away at the right time. Then he talked about special development areas and why he could not support the provost of his main town. I hope the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary read that speech. It was fairly critical of the special development areas, and especially about the effect they have on industries already in an area. Most new jobs do not come from industries entering an area but from those already there, those who are equipped, modernised and ready to take the chance. I do not see why we should pay very much attention to the hon. Gentleman. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said when he was Prime Minister, the hon. Gentleman is an expert on certain kinds of fish and he should stick to that. Tonight he specialised in red herrings.
  My hon. Friends have painted the real picture of employment in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) spoke of the electronics industry as it affected Glenrothes and elsewhere. The fact is that G.E.C. is moving factories from the area, concentrating in the South. There is the position over Plessey's raised by my hon. Friend. If we read the letter he received from the Under-Secretary at the Department of Trade and Industry it says that:
  "… the factory and machinery were acquired by the firm from the Ministry as a normal commercial transaction and the terms of sale are therefore confidential."
  Are they? What they received has to appear in "Appropriations for Aid" in the Estimates and it can be quoted by the P.A.C. Whatever it was I can assure the hon. Gentleman it was not a normal commercial transaction. I can tell him that Plessey's was not the only interested firm. It may well be that Plessey's was interested in keeping a particular firm out. I do not think that the people of Dumbarton and Alexandria generally would be greatly taken by the chairman of that company who brought such devastating news to this area about the redundancies which are to take effect in August. I do not think that they would give him a knighthood. But this is quite common. Saxone, the well-known shoe firm, came to Kilmarnock. Its main factory there closed in April and over 200 people have been made redundant. The chairman has been
  378
  rewarded with a knighthood. So the redundancy makers who have come to Scotland—Clore and Clark—can revel in their knighthoods, but those knighthoods are not supported by the people they have made unemployed. It was the old argument—works have to be concentrated. Plessey and the rest all said exactly the same thing.
  What it all comes down to is that the Government are not prepared to intervene. That is the implication of this letter. It reminds us of the kind of letters we used to get in the early 1960s from the same Department—the commercial judgment of firms must not be challenged. The logical conclusion of this situation is that the Government's regional policy is virtually at an end. They are doing nothing about it. Here is a case in which they should have intervened because Plessey lives by Government contracts. The Mark 24 torpedo ran into snags at the Alexandria factory and the work was continued by Plessey. The torpedo is now to be developed. Where will it be manufactured? We have been through this before with the Ministry of Defence.
  One of the things we did in Government, apart from the money we spent in development areas, was to allow contracts by nationalised industries, the Post Office and so on to be placed in development areas. But this Government are not concerned with regional policy. It is obvious that when they make the former head of the C.B.I. the Minister in charge, he will naturally listen to the pleas of the C.B.I.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the difficulties of the electronics industry. I hope we get an answer on the question of dumping which he raised. There are other cases of dumping in Scotland—in the paper trade, for example. It is time we had an answer in view of today's reports about Inveresk and elsewhere and the competition to which they have been subjected.
  The Government now say that reflation is taking place and all will be well. We have reports from the stores about increased demand. But Scotland has 134,000 unemployed and the people of Scotland are not going out of their way to buy fridges and cars and the rest.

  379
  Many of them are not even having holidays this year. When is the situation going to improve? The only person in the Government who has had the mischance to reply to that question is the Secretary of State for Scotland, but then he does not always know what he is talking about. He is probably advised by his Parliamentary Private Secretary. He said, in an inadevertent Parliamentary Answer earlier this year, that there will be an improvement later this year. The position has got worse. We have 134,000 unemployed this month and in August the figure will show a further rise. The simple reason is that most of the youngsters who have left school have not yet registered. Some did not leave school until after the registration date; some went on holiday at once. But they will register in August when the schools go back. The Government will then see the figures go up, as they did last year and the year before.
  But some of the redundancies already notified will also be taking effect. The Plessey figures will be included in the next count. The figures should start going down in September and October, stabilise in November and start rising in December, January and February. Last year, there was an increase of 30,000 between July and February. If that happens this year, it means that in February and March, after the winter, and provided that it is a mild winter, and last winter could not have been milder, there will be between 30,000 and 40,000 more unemployed than now, and that would be a total approaching 170,000 to 180,000 in Scotland.
  Yet Ministers will stand making the same speech—"Please Sir, it wasna me". They have been in office since June of last year and they have revelled in being the Government. They gave us a "great new impetus" on 26th October, the mini-Budget. Instead of an impetus, it drove Scotland further into unemployment. So they made us a special development area in March, and that was followed by the Budget, and now we have the latest effort.
  There is no confidence in Scotland that they will be able to pull out. The situation is pretty well out of control. What do the Government have within
  380
  their control? It is the future of the U.C.S. Men will sit in Downing Street and solemnly decide what is to be the future employment in those yards. The only thing standing between the maximum use of the existing force with the possibility of building it up—because the orders are there to be obtained by an efficient yard—between the men and their continued work and the continued well being of their families is a Government unprepared to give financial support.
  Whether the Under-Secretary likes it or not, his name has been coupled with a report which has been called the Ridley Report. It was first mentioned in the House in the debate on the Queen's Speech in July, 1970. It was then mentioned in the Guardian at the time of the announcement of the liquidation, and its existence has never been denied. May I tell the hon. Member that I have seen it? May I further tell the hon. Member that I have seen the circulation, those other people to whom it was sent? The Secretary of State for Scotland has never said that he has never had it; but he has said that he has never read it.
  What we want from the hon. Member, and I think that we are entitled to ask—because there were certain plans A and B in the report and one of those plans has been followed to the letter, the sequence has been perfect—is his confirmation or denial that that is what took place. The importance of this is that the man who as a back bench Member drew up this report and submitted it to somebody is now the man in charge of shipping, the man who advises the expert on lame ducks. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), our silent senator, would like to intervene.
  Mr. Hector Monro: It is private.
  Mr. Ross: I did not wish to accuse the hon. Member of having bad manners, but he was talking. I do not know whether he is bursting to make a speech or just talking privately about Northern Ireland.
  Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: If my hon. Friend was talking, it was because at that moment I wished

  381
  to ask him a question which required an answer. He was very kind and polite to answer.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Do it outside.
  Mr. Ross: I heard the voice of the hon. Gentleman. I would never accuse him of discourtesy, but his conversation could have been conducted a little more quietly and preferably elsewhere.
  I want to come on to the question of what is happening now. I do not want to go into the past; that is murky enough. I am concerned very much about a decision that will take place. We understand that the four "wise men" gave their report or their advice to the Government on Monday. We understand that it is being considered by the Department. That Department, for which the Under-Secretary is partly responsible, will submit its report, or advice on that report, to the Cabinet on Thursday—tomorrow—and the Cabinet will make its decision.
  On that rests the fate of about 8,000 people employed in U.C.S. and also the livelihood of probably another 16,000 to 20,000 people whose livelihood depends on the continued existence in full force of U.C.S. I hope that the Government are seized of the importance of this, set within the sombre background of the Scottish unemployment situation. Let us have no more smears about the quality of the men. I was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell) did not get up and attack his hon. Friend, but perhaps he no longer calls him an hon. Friend.
  Let us understand the importance of this to the background and to the people themselves. With my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan) and Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), I had the advantage of seeing Sir Alexander Glen, Lord Robens and the two McDonalds. I was impressed by the quality of the people. I was anxious to find what was their remit. If a hatchet job is to be done, it will not be done by them. It will be done here. All that they will do, I presume, is offer certain suggestions or possibilities to the Government and tell them what the cost of these things will be. We ought to see that report and what advice is offered to the Government and balance
  382
  against that the decision that the Government eventually take.
  If any ceiling is to be placed on the support to U.C.S. in its reconstruction, the people who impose the ceiling will be the Government. We in Scotland recall a decision announced by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the Government were not having an airport at Cublington but would put it at Foulness and would spend £150 million more to do it. Money, therefore, does not matter to them. Evidently they have plenty of it. They have already spent nearly £3 million, and probably more, in keeping U.C.S. ticking over.
  Whatever proposals are put forward for the reconstructed U.C.S.—and I am sure that there will be some form of reconstruction—this will demand further money.
  We would get more and more into the Rolls-Royce situation, but the Government have had second thoughts as they have gone along. They do not have the courage to see the "Butcher Ridley" plan through. The reaction of the people of Scotland, not just of the workers of U.C.S., made them stop short. But we are concerned to ensure that they turn their back altogether on that plan; that they maximise production; that they make the fullest use of resources of manpower and machinery, and that they do not flinch from the need for capital development perhaps in one or other particular yard, because the potential in the long run might be the best bet because of the short-term economic advantage.
  That is why I strongly applaud what has been said by more than one of my hon. Friends tonight about Clydebank. It is too easy to say that we can write off Clydebank. We cannot. We cannot write off John Brown without writing off Clydebank, and nobody in their senses in such a situation would write off Clydebank. I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office will appreciate that.
  I do not know of any town that suffered more during the war or whose people did more to build that town up again, and for a Government to devastate it again in a way more damaging than anything done during the war would be an absolute and utter disgrace.

  383
  It is time some of the Scottish Ministers realised one power they have, and that is the power to resign. I know they cannot use it all the time, but I hope that the Secretary of State is using it now. If we get the dissolution of U.C.S., the people who will be blamed in Scotland will not be the little men but those in the Scottish Office, and the Secretary of State for Scotland has special responsibility.
  So that is our demand in respect of U.C.S. We want to ensure that the Government will accept their responsibility; that they will publish the report; that they will make their decision soon; that that decision will be to maintain the existing labour force at these Clydeside yards; that there will be no fragmentation; that the solution will not be the kind of solution advised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) that they should sell off even at a pittance, as he said.
  I can assure the hon. Gentleman that unless this is done, that unless hope is brought of a continuation of employment in these yards, with greater assurance of stability of employment, and unless the reconstructed company is given the right to seek orders, or to deal with orders that were pretty well the company's before these events started in train, there will be a very considerable outburst of anger and resentment, not just in Clydeside but throughout Scotland, such as we have not seen for a long time.
  The decision is entirely the Government's. It is not that of the four wise men but that of the Government. And it is a Government that are not held in very high regard in Scotland—I think because the people of Scotland did not want them, and are suspicious of everything they do. They had better make a good job of it here, because with 134,000 unemployed now, rising for the month of August to nearly 140,000, and with the effects of the Plessey rundown still to be felt, anything they do that worsens the position in U.C.S.—well, they can have all the S.D.A.s they like, and all the summer fetes they like, but the people of Scotland will not tolerate or look with equanimity on a Government that look at the black reality of the situation and decide to make it worse.
  384
  This has been a serious debate. I am glad that my hon. Friends from Scottish constituencies have emphasised that what we are concerned about is unemployment, and whether the decision the Government will make within the next 48 hours will make it better or worse. The quality of the people on Clydeside demands that they make the right decision. The quality of the workmanship of which they are capable, given the right leadership and management, is an asset to the nation, which should be built up and not destroyed.
  12.40 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): We have had a serious, interesting and wide-ranging debate. I shall answer as many points as possible, though I hope that the House will accept that some of them are beyond the immediate responsibilities of my Department. I am sure that they will be picked up by other Ministers where they are concerned. I shall draw their attention to them where necessary.
  I have the deepest sympathy for all those affected by the alarmingly high level of unemployment in Scotland. Like the whole Government and, I am sure, all hon. Members, I understand what it means in human terms for the people affected, their families and all concerned. I hope that no hon. Member will accuse me of not having those feelings in any aspect of what I say.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that his first question was about what would happen in the future. I cannot answer him, and I do not think that anyone would expect me to speculate on the number of jobs and the number of unemployed in the up-turn or down-turn of economic forces in the period ahead, either short-term or long-term. Economic forecasting is one of the most dangerous sciences in which we can indulge.
  I can give the right hon. Gentleman a few figures, however. The number of unemployed in Scotland has risen from 93,000 at the last General Election to 134,500. This follows a steady loss of jobs during the years 1966–70, when over 80,000 jobs were lost to Scotland.
  Hon. Members: That is not true.
  Mr. Ridley: In the period immediately before that, from 1960 to 1964, there was a gain of over 30,000 jobs, so it ill behoves the right hon. Gentleman to wag his finger at me across the Box. His record was not one to be all that proud of. Although I have stated that I am worried about the present position and sympathise with those affected, the right hon. Gentleman is in no position to talk as he did.
  It is a little too simple just to lay the blame for the present admittedly worrying situation on this Government alone. There have been extraneous factors operating for the worse, such as the microelectronics problem, which is in no sense anything to do with the Government, the problem of the replacement of jute by man-made fibres, and the troubles in Pakistan, which have held up supplies.
  Much more important, there have been major economic factors at work not only in this country but in the world. The origins of our trouble go back to 1969, the American recession and the recession which followed in this country, largely induced by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) in his 1969 Budget, which caused the drastic contraction of the money supply and of demand and economic activity, the effects of which are still working through the economy. I can give instances. Some American firms which have set up in Scotland have found that when ill winds blew they had to close their Scottish subsidiaries and that the market for the products which they were making in America was contracting due to the American recession and therefore they could not produce so much or employ so many. In which respect was this due to the activities of the British Government?
  Mr. Buchan: When were these deep-seated factors known to the Government? On 16th June, 1970, two days before the General Election, we were promised that unemployment would come down at a stroke. Has it?
  Mr. Ridley: I do not remember any such promise as that. I remember words relating to other matters. But unemployment was rising in the period before the Labour Party left office. To believe that the existence of a different Government since June has in some curious way created the increase in unemployment is begging the question.
  386
  There have been three Budgets since the last election—one in October last, one in April this year and the mini-Budget last week—all of them increasing the resources in the community's hands, all of them increasing demand and all of them working to cure recessions and not to create them. All the Government's economic activities have been designed to improve the situation left by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and his guilty colleagues.
  Mr. Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the change from investment grants to investment allowances, which has been deplored in the shipbuilding industry and by more and more people in industry generally, has been of advantage, and what effect has it had upon development? The hon. Gentleman has referred to the three Budgets we have had since the General Election. The first one did not work, and the second one has not worked. Heaven help us if the third one does not work.
  Mr. Ridley: I am coming to the question of investment grants. It is obvious—and I am sure that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will agree——
  Mr. Ross: Do not be too sure.
  Mr. Ridley Mr. Ridley —that the change from investment grants to investment allowances would have the effect of reducing or increasing the amount of investment starting or being planned in Scotland. That would be how one would measure it. One would not measure it by the increase in unemployment. One would measure it by the increase in projects or in new investment. I have the figures. From January to June, 1970, there were 117 industrial development certificates, expected to produce 4,800 jobs. From July to December, 1970, there were 124 certificates, expected to produce 7,100 jobs. From January to June, 1971, there were 89 certificates, expected to produce 7,200 jobs. Therefore, the rate for the first half of this year has shown an improvement of nearly 50 per cent.
  Mr. Douglas: What is the figure for private investment?
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman must take his medicine. He and his hon. Friends have had their say. When the Government tell them the truth about

  387
  what has happened, they must listen and not interrupt.
  Mr. James Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the I.D.C.s which had been granted and the number of jobs which they will bring. Will he concede that many of these certificates have been granted and not used? I can prove this in my own constituency.
  Mr. Ridley: I cannot at present give the details behind these global figures. It is the figures themselves which the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind in considering this question in the future.
  I also have the figures for West Central Scotland—the Glasgow area. From January to June 1970, I.D.C.s led, it is estimated, to the creation of 1,990 jobs; July to December 1970, 2,830 jobs; January to June 1971, 3,730 jobs. There is no evidence there to support what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are saying.
  The hon. Gentleman for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) asked about Rolls-Royce. Of the 4,400 made redundant in this respect, some 1,405 are still unemployed. This shows a considerable absorption of those unfortunate people.
  There is no news I can give the hon. Gentleman about the RB 211. He must await a statement in due course, which in its turn depends on the Americans.
  He also asked about a statement on shipbuilding credit. I confirm that a statement will be made before the Recess. It was never suggested or intended it should go wider than to deal with the future of the credit scheme. We have never suggested this would deal with the whole policy, but only with the future of the credit scheme.
  The hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) drew attention to the serious situation in Dundee where unemployment has risen from 4·9 per cent. a year ago to its present level of 7·8 per cent. He asked whether the Government would consider giving special development area status to Tayside. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) put forward contrary views to those of the hon. Member for Dundee, West, but I thought they carried some cogency.
  The point is that there is only a limited amount of mobile industry which can be expected to settle in new areas, and
  388
  the more widely one spreads the incentives the less there will be for any particular region.
  I am sure Opposition Members will agree that the gravity, scale and size of the problem is far worse in West Central Scotland than it is on the east coast. Therefore, although I shall convey to my right hon. Friend what has been said tonight, in view of the scale of the problem about which the hon. Gentleman spoke with emotion and real feeling, it is right that the benefits should be concentrated where they are needed rather than that they should be spread thinly over the whole country.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that Dundee was totally failing to attract industries. But he might like to know that again the figures of estimated new employment created by I.D.C.'s show a fairly steady improvement in Dundee from some 140 to 1,590. Therefore, we are not as depressed as the hon. Gentleman about the prospects. I agree that it is not easy for Dundee so long as it has to compete with the incentives available in special development areas.
  I want at this point to say a word about the jute industry, where there has been a considerable run-down. This has been due to the substitution of polypropylene for jute. There have also been serious difficulties in Pakistan following the troubles in that unfortunate country. We are very conscious of the difficulties which the jute industry has been facing, and the decision not to increase jute import quotas during the year beginning May, 1971, was a clear recognition of the difficulties.
  Concern has been expressed about supplies following the recent disturbances in East Pakistan. Latest reports suggest that there is sufficient raw jute in stock in the Dundee district, in transit, or stacked at ports in Pakistan to keep the Scottish industry going at its present level for the present. The longer-term availability of raw material depends on the possibility of getting to ports in Pakistan the new crop now ready for harvesting. We are well aware of the need to maintain supplies in Dundee, and we have been in touch with the Pakistan authorities, who have assured us that they are giving the matter close and urgent attention. We shall continue to do all that we can to help.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Have the Government received any specific assurances about transporting the jute crop to ports in Pakistan?
  Mr. Ridley: The authorities in Pakistan have undertaken to do their utmost to achieve it. It is impossible at present to say how that will work out.
  The hon. Member for Bothwell asked about Government training centres. There are now 10 centres in Scotland, and there is no proposal either to run one down or to close any of them. We have some space capacity in most of the training centres, and we shall do all that we can to encourage as many people as possible to take advantage of the vacancies.
  The hon. Members for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) and Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Ian Campbell) both made important contributions to the debate. They were concerned about the Plessey factory. I should tell the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East that work on two advance factories has started at Dalmuir and that a third one is to start building in August. We know of no interruption to their progress, and it is hoped that they will be available and let very soon.
  The whole House regrets the announcement by Plessey that it has had to cease both the machine shop activities at Alexandria and the numerical-control work (here which only a short time ago seemed to offer the prospect of a substantial growth in new employment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office, were especially disappointed, since my hon. Friend attended the hand-over ceremony when the ex-torpedo factory passed officially to the company. I cannot comment on the future of the torpedo, but I shall draw the remarks of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West to the attention of the Ministry of Defence. I hope that that Department will be able to let the hon. Gentleman know what the future is to be.
  It is a blow that the Plessey factory has been closed. Numerical control for machine tools would be a very important growth industry. However, the difficulty is world-wide. It is not confined to Scotland. It is not in any sense due to local conditions. I have recently visited two
  390
  major machine tool exhibitions at which I heard machine tool builders of all countries and of all types complaining about the extreme difficulties through which the industry is going at present.
  I should like to mention microcircuits, a matter raised by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). I will not say very much about this matter, because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) will be specifically raising the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. David Price) later today. It would be wrong for me to cover the ground when there is to be a debate solely upon this matter. I am sure that the hon. Member for Fife, West will want to listen to that debate, because my hon. Friend will go into the matter in great depth.
  The factory at Glenrothes is not the only factory which G.E.C. has closed. It has also closed one at Witham in Essex. Therefore, Scotland has not been discriminated against in this matter. The balance has been equal between the two countries. We must leave it to the company to decide at which place it must make economies. Otherwise, we shall laden our companies with extra costs which will make it harder still for them to compete.
  The problem here is competition. It is simply that the cheap producers in the Far East, and some in Europe, are exporting to world markets at prices far below what used to rule a short time ago. I have heard about prices as low as one-tenth of prices a year or two back for certain components. The average is probably not more than a fifth. It is probably most beneficial work to under-developed countries, which the Opposition are always keen we should help. Whatever the reason may be——
  Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Europe.
  Mr. Ridley: Portugal is one of the countries, but the bulk is coming from the Far East where the standard of living is very low indeed.
  Competition here is through E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth. I do not think that any hon. Gentleman opposite, let alone the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, was proposing that we should

  391
  erect tariffs or other bars to trade either in E.F.T.A. or in the Commonwealth merely for the purpose of protecting the microcircuit industry against perfectly normal exports from these countries.
  The hon. Member for Fife, West and, I think, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock seemed to be alleging that there was dumping. I was asked what legal as opposed to illegal dumping meant. The answer, on which my hon. Friend will enlarge later in the day, is that legal dumping is dumping which is proved to be dumping under the terms of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Acts. It must be proved that the prices at which goods are being sold or exported are lower than the domestic prices ruling in the country where the goods are manufactured. If that is not the case, then it is not dumping. It is up to the competitors who are complaining to prove their case on a matter of that kind.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the matter of Rolls-Royce and why the Government did not give evidence to the Congressional Committee in America. The answer is that it is not the function of the Government to become involved in another Government's affairs. We provided written evidence to put before the Committee, so that there were no misconceptions about the exact position of the British Government in the matter. We thought that it was likely to be counter-productive, because it would arouse adverse response, if the Government were to give oral evidence as well. There is no evidence that our position has been weakened by what we did. There is no danger to the project arising from this incident
  The hon. Gentleman also asked about the future of H.M.S. "Caledonia" at Rosyth. In the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1970, the hon. Gentleman's own Government said this:
  "H.M.S. 'Caledonia' will cease to be a training school for engineering purposes in 1977–78, and its task will be centralised in H.M.S. 'Sultan'. A number of possibilities for the continued use of the establishment after the present task moves are being considered …"
  I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Defence to supplement that for the hon. Gentleman if they can.
  Mr. Dalyell: It is the rundown of the civilian instructors engaged primarily in training for civilian purposes about which we are concerned.
  Mr. Ridley: I take the point, but we cannot say anything about the future until we know about the future of the station itself.
  I was asked by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Craigton and for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) to go over again some of the points in the history of the Department's relationships with U.C.S. I believe that it will be helpful if I do so, so that I can clear the record and so that there will be no misapprehensions about what happened. There are extraordinary suggestions by hon. Members that there should be some inquiry into this matter. I think that I can clear the matter without much difficulty.
  I slightly resent the suggestions that the things that have been said by Ministers in the House in debate and in answer to Questions are not true. In matters of fact of this sort it behoves hon. Gentlemen to accept what they are told as being true.
  Mr. Millan: The Government has been telling us lies all along about everything.
  Mr. Ridley: After the way that the hon. Gentleman has been saying things like that, I must seek your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The House would do best to hear the Minister. If hon. Gentlemen wish to intervene, I am sure that the Minister will be ready to give way.
  Mr. Ridley: In October of last year the Shipbuilding Industry Board director warned the Government that in his opinion as a director of the company and with the information which he had available to him the company was in serious danger of trading illegally and that it would be wrong for the Government to guarantee credits to the company. When I asked the company to give us a complete balance sheet and profit and loss account, in the hopes that it would enable us to continue granting guarantees, the company undertook to do this and to come back as soon as it had its balance sheet properly organised.

  393
  It was not a question of cash flow. The problem was one of asset deficiency, in that the suspicion of the S.I.B. director was that the company was trading illegally because the value of its assets was less than the value it owed on the balance sheet.
  When the balance sheet was produced in November it proved that the S.I.B. director was right and that the company was not in a position to trade legally. From that point the Government suspended guarantees and did all they could to facilitate the company to get itself into a position where it ceased to have an asset deficiency.
  The results of three months of negotiations, mainly over the Yarrow problem, were that an extra £10 million of Government loans was agreed to be written off or written down which relieved the balance sheet of that amount of debit. There was also £2·8 million or thereabouts received or promised from shipowners which was allowed to be shown in the accounts as credit. The result of the separation of Yarrows plus these two things was to turn the balance sheet out of deficit into credit and it allowed the company to continue trading without any question.
  This was announced to the House on 11th February. The company's accounts were inspected by the accountants in the Department and in the Treasury. All concerned, including the company's accountants, believed that the company was perfectly viable and in a condition to continue trading. I am not in any way traducing that when I say that the company itself felt it could now continue and would soon enter another profitable phase.
  It was not because of Rolls-Royce. What the hon. Gentleman said is untrue. We did not suspect that anything was wrong on 4th February and everybody concerned——
  Mr. Douglas rose——
  Mr. Ridley: Let me finish my point. Everyone concerned believed the company was in a position to prosper. The suggestions that there was knowledge that trouble was imminent or that it was something to do with Rolls-Royce or the political situation or anything of that sort are entirely untrue.
  Mr. Millan: The announcement about Rolls-Royce was made by the Minister in the House on 4th February and the information about it was certainly available on 3rd February. Is it not an extraordinary coincidence that the day on which the U.C.S. situation should miraculously appear to be all right again should be the day on which Rolls-Royce was collapsing? This is far more than coincidence and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
  Mr. Ridley: There may be a slight element of coincidence, as the dates were so close together. But for the hon. Gentleman to engage in tittle-tattle and smear without the slightest ability to produce evidence—these are the words he used about my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus—is something he should personally withdraw when I have given him my word that what he is saying is untrue.
  Mr. Millan rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Ross: When he challenges my hon. Friend, the Minister should give way.
  Mr. Millan rose——
  Mr. Ridley: Does the hon. Gentleman want to withdraw what he was saying?
  Mr. Millan: Certainly not.
  Mr. Ridley: I would make one point in answer to the reasonable point by the hon. Member for West Lothian, that we certainly did not know in February that the company was in any sort of difficulty.
  Mr. Millan: That is not true.
  Mr. Ridley: In June we had three days' notice that the company had an assets deficiency, which was later assessed by the liquidator at many millions of pounds. What went wrong is a good question, one which we are still inquiring into and which we hope to settle in due course.
  Mr. Douglas: Would the Minister give way on his previous remarks?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Ridley: No, I will not give way——
  Mr. Ross: Will the Minister give way to me on this?
  Mr. Ridley: I have refused to give way to his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Ross: But this is a serious point. We remember that evening very well because we had a debate on Scottish employment. At midnight I went to see the Secretary of State for Scotland. I never publicised it, because it concerned U.C.S. and because of the messages we had received directly from the company. The Minister will equally know, or he ought to, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) was on the telephone to the Secretary of State. There was no doubt about the position and the troubles of U.C.S. that night—2nd February.
  Mr. Millan: The Secretary of State told us.
  Mr. Ridley: And a few days later than that my right hon. Friend made his statement in the House—I do not remember the exact date—in which he announced the reconstruction of U.C.S., the separation of Yarrow and the grants from the shipowners which together were putting the company in a position in which it claimed and appeared to be totally able to continue trading. So I think that that disposes of that problem——
  Mr. Douglas: No, it does not.
  Mr. Ridley: ——and I hope that, in future, hon. Gentlemen will accept what they have been told and not go around trying to create mischief without a shred of evidence.
  Mr. Douglas: This is shocking.
  Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend has referred to two conversations that he had with the Secretary of State for Scotland and that I had with his right hon. Friend. It would not be right for me to reveal in the House what was exchanged between the Minister and myself, but I can only tell the hon. Gentlemen and the House that the account which he gave of the Government's attitude to U.C.S. and to the viability of that company at that time runs absolutely counter to what the hon. Gentleman has just told the House.
  Mr. Ridley: I am not aware of the contents of either of the two meetings
  396
  because I was not present at them. Nor would it be my intention to reveal the contents of private meetings in the way that the right hon. Gentleman came dangerously near doing——
  Mr. Douglas: Tell us what U.C.S. told you.
  Mr. Ridley: One hon. Member asked how much would be spent on paying wages in the period up to 6th August. The total is about £3 million, of which probably half, or slightly more, will be regained from the shipowners who have had their ships completed through the work being done on them. So that is in the nature of a loan and the net cost will not be so great.
  The report of the advisers has been received by my right hon. Friend, although there may be a revised copy still to come before it is finalised. We have been in touch with them from time to time and we know roughly the ideas they have in mind, but now the Government have to make up their mind on what to do about the report. I would say categorically that their minds have not been made up, that the report in the Scottish Daily Express is not true, and that what has been said in this debate will be carefully conveyed to my right hon. Friends, who will certainly not make up their minds without knowledge of these views.
  Mr. Dalyell: There is a question on the review which is taking place, which the Minister half answered, although I think he had more to say. What improvements will be made in the Government machine to ensure that this does not happen again?
  Mr. Ridley: We are studying this problem, to some extent as a result of this. The information available to the board of directors of U.C.S., which was available also to us, did not convey a full picture of what was happening. I do not know how it is possible to get around that.
  My right hon. Friend will be making a statement very soon. I cannot say anything now about what the statement will contain or what the Government's conclusions will be, partly because the Government have not made up their mind and partly because they will wish to announce this in a statement at a later date.
  Mr. Buchan: In the House?
  Mr. Ridley: Yes.
  Before he jumps on the band wagon and suggests nationalisation and all that he has been putting forward, and cries shame on us for what has happened to U.C.S., the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East, should remember his evidence to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs on 24th June, 1969. Like the hon. Member for Fife, West, I will end my speech with a quotation. It is not very long, but if the House will bear with me I am sure 'that hon. Members will find it interesting:
  "First of all, we have never taken the view—it would be quite wrong to take the view—that at whatever price U.C.S. or any other company in the shipbuilding industry would be kept alive. That would be accepting an open-ended commitment and would undermine entirely the shipbuilding policy generally. Because were we to take such a view that U.C.S. could under no circumstances go into liquidation, we would be creating a situation in which they would be free to undercut other shipbuilders on the lower Clyde, in the northeast, in Belfast, and know that their losses would be carried by a Government that was prepared under no circumstances to contemplate withdrawing support."

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
1.21 a.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: The gravity of the situation in Scotland, which the Government have created by their economic policies and their failure to act to deal with the consequences of them, may appear somewhat to dampen interest in the debate upon which we are now entering, under Class VI, Vole 16, but, although the matters which I wish to raise are of small significance compared with the serious situation in Scotland, they are of considerable importance to my constituents and to many council and private tenants throughout the country.
There is serious need for investigation and research into the problem of under-occupation of both council houses and private property, whether rented or owner-occupied. A great contribution could be made towards solving our housing problem if we could encourage the full use of existing property. This could be done if the facts were ascertained. To this end, I suggest, the
398
Government should consider making available to local authorities grants of funds so that they could conduct research in their local areas. When the size of the problem was ascertained, finance should then be forthcoming from the Government to enable the local authorities to deal with the problem.
There are many council properties under-occupied because of changes in family size. Children have moved on, have married perhaps and bought their own houses, and the fathers and mothers remain in three-bedroom or sometimes four-bedroom houses. The same state of affairs prevails in private property, both rented and owner-occupied.
I should be the last to suggest that anything should be done other than to try to encourage, with proper financial assistance, a voluntary transfer to more suitable accommodation by those who wish to avail themselves of smaller and more easily managed homes. But I urge the Minister to consider instituting some research into the problem, for out of it could come a considerable easing of the housing shortage.
The other matter which needs investigating relates to the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing.". On page 5, in paragraph 18, the Government state that selective employment tax added £120 or more to the cost of building an ordinary family house. Now that S.E.T. has been halved there should be a reduction in the cost of construction. The Under-Secretary ought to do some detailed research by the end of the year and find out what has been the result of the halving of the tax. This is £80 or more which ought to have been taken off the cost of the average three-bedroom house. The Government should be able to tell us whether the industry has used this reduction to bring down prices or whether it has used it to increase its profits. This can only be done on the basis of properly evaluated research into the industry. The Minister has a duty to find out the facts rather than stamp round the country making political speeches about the benefits springing from the reduction in S.E.T. Many of us suspect that the reduction will lead to an increase in profitability for the speculative builders.
Mr. Ronald Brown: Will my hon. Friend bear

399
in mind that when the Government were in opposition it was a favourite cry of theirs that because of S.E.T. the price of housing had rocketed? He is quite right to put this argument and ask for a categoric assurance that prices will fall.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure the Minister will be prepared to give that categoric assurance. We would not be prepared to accept it unless it was backed by proper research. We have long since learned that we can put whatever weight we wish upon statements made by this Government.
One of the charges falling upon local authorities is the cost of advertising for staff. It has been estimated that this costs local authorities in England and Wales over £5 million a year. This is an unnecessary burden on the ratepayer. There should be a study to determine whether the Department of the Environment could set up a computer to deal with this so that names of those wishing to change their jobs in local government could be fed into the computer and matched with vacancies. This would save a considerable part of the £5 million. In local government papers week after week I see bigger and better advertisements, paid for out of the rates, for staff poaching from one authority to another. We may not be able to stop staff poaching but we should study whether we could find a more economic way of dealing with local government recruitment and advertising. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider that proposal.
The House will not be surprised that I speak now of the urgent and vital need for an inquiry into the Thamesmead development in my constituency. This development is to provide homes for 60,000 Londoners. A large number of homes have already been built and are occupied. When the scheme was conceived in 1966, the total cost was estimated to be about £30 million. It has been revised upwards and is now more than £43 million, a dramatic increase. The difficulty in dealing with this serious situation is that one is unable to obtain reliable information. One cannot get it from the G.L.C. and the Department is reluctant to give information in reply
400
to questions in this House. My questions to the hon. Gentleman have been of no avail in getting the essential information that the public are entitled to have in respect of what many fear is a growing financial scandal at Thamesmead.
Mr. Ronald Brown: In the inner London boroughs, many of us—I am particularly concerned with my constituency in this respect—have been trying to get people transferred to Thamesmead from bad housing conditions but now our councils are not allowed to nominate people to Thamesmead unless they are in receipt of gross earnings of more than £40 a week and are, therefore, prepared to pay economic rents.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am aware of the difficulty that the G.L.C. is experiencing in finding tenants able to afford the excessive rents at Thamesmead. These high rents are based upon the scandalously high cost of the development. Stage one of the development was constructed outside the requirements of the Government's cost yardsticks; stage two, as far as I can ascertain, was not entirely outside them but there was some arrangement between the G.L.C. and the Government; now I am informed that stage three will be within the cost yardsticks but will have tacked on certain extras in respect of difficulties in construction on the site which have been experienced.
The most reliable estimate of costs for stages one and two, expressed as an average cost per unit of accommodation, is in excess of £12,000. This is why my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown) has found that his constituents are unable to be allocated such properties unless they have an income of more than £40 a week, because with a lower income they are not able to afford rents which are based on such high costs of construction.
If that figure of £12,000 is not correct, the G.L.C. or the Government must state the true financial position in documented form so that people may study it and make their own estimate, for no one will rely on a figure just given by the authorities and not substantiated by documents, because for stage three, after all the teething troubles of the site

401
have been overcome, the cost will still be in excess of £9,000 per unit of accommodation and garage. These are very high costs for this type of accommodation, and they are resulting in very high rents, which in turn are creating social problems among the people sent to live at Thamesmead.
I am given to understand that the Government subsidy per unit of accommodation averages in excess of £300. These are extraordinarily high figures, and on this sort of evidence it is clear that there should be a full inquiry into the costs and financing of Thamesmead. Most of the land on which the development has taken place has been acquired from the Ministry of Defence by the G.L.C. for less than £7,000 per acre. While substantial sums have had to be spent, because of the nature of the site, to bring it up to a standard suitable for construction, even in the earlier stages the total figure was only about £21,000 per acre. Even with that figure, even if it has increased by 100 per cent., the total cost, including bringing the site to a suitable standard, would still be only £42,000 per acre—and I doubt whether costs have increased so much—and that would still be cheap land compared with many other sites in the G.L.C. area.
Another problem concerns the industrialised building factory which has been constructed on the site and which is producing slabs for the high rise buildings. I frequently get reports from people who have worked in the factory about some of the things going on there. Some of the slabs found during construction to be faulty are broken up at the weekend when there are not many people about to see what is going on. The industialised building factory itself could do with a little research into and study of its activities.
Rain penetration of brand new buildings in Thamesmead is another matter crying out for an urgent inquiry. Even with this extremely expensive construction and these almost impossibly high rents, tenants are finding within a few weeks of moving into brand new properties that they have the problem of rain penetration. This is a scandalous situation, and the Minister should be prepared to spend some of the money allocated in the Vote for research and
402
inquiry on conducting an urgent inquiry into the construction and any design faults which may be responsible for this rain penetration.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Before my hon. Friend concludes his remarks on that aspect, will be indicate what success the tenants have in communicating to the authority concerned their complaints concerning that and other deficiencies in these properties? There is a widespread belief, which I am sure is well founded in London, that the way in which that communication can be made is riddled with defects.
Mr. Wellbeloved: That is so. The Greater London Council suffers, of course, from the disability of being very remote. This, again, is a matter on which the Under-Secretary might consider it worth spending money to undertake a study in depth.
I can tell my hon. Friend that for the residents of Thamesmead the only effective method of communication with the local authority concerning rain penetration was to display in their windows notices calling attention to it. As this is a scheme which many people from all over the world are invited to view, the G.L.C. has rightly had to start paying attention, at long last, to a study of the matter.
I have indicated a number of matters on which research and inquiry would be worth while. I hope that the Under-Secretary will consider them. He may not be able to answer all the points tonight, but I hope that he will be able to tell the House a great deal about the Thamesmead development, its financing and its cost and what he intends to do about this scandalous situation. I hope he will announce that he will hold an inquiry into the scheme.
1.42 a.m.
Mr. Ronald Brown: I, too, wish to speak to Class VI, Vote 16, Subhead J, with its expenditure of £1,415,000 for 1971–72. I want to look at the need for surveys, research, studies and inquiries on the basis of office building in particular. I do this because we have tried hard for some time to elicit from the Government answers to questions.

403
I can understand my right hon. and hon. Friends from Scotland, with their petulance, feeling gravely upset at the rather unseemly exchanges which occurred in the preceding debate when they argued that they were not getting truthful answers from the Government. When one puts down Questions on office building to the Government, one gets similar short shrift from them.
One of our biggest problems in London is the difficulty of siting office buildings, primarily because so many empty office buildings are already available. It does not matter how one puts down Questions to Ministers. I put down a Question on 31st March to ascertain the superficial area of office building remaining empty up to and including 31st December, 1970. I illustrated the Inner London area so that the Minister would be in a position to discuss in detail with me the reasons why such a vast amount of empty office space was available.
One can go through my constituency any day of the week and hire 20,000 ft. super office space without even dropping a hat. At the same time, a vast amount of new building is going up on the Barbican site. Hundreds of thousands of square feet of office space are being made available in an area which already has a surfeit of that type of accommodation. An intelligent Government would want to know the present availability of empty office space so as to be able to programme what additional space was needed.
In a debate on homeless families on 15th July, the Minister said that he would seek from the boroughs information about land not zoned for housing purposes but able to be adequately used for that purpose. It all sounded very good; but I had received a reply on 31st March that the Minister just did not have a clue about office space, it suggested that the Department did not have the information, but that if I searched around on my own I might get it from the local authorities. Such a silly answer does not bring the best out of hon. Members who are trying to get information on behalf of their constituents. Two months later he said that he had asked local authorities if they had land which, though not zoned for
404
housing could be used for housing. I took him to mean land zoned for office and commercial development. My hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Lena Jeger) got a similar reply to a similar question—"We in the Department do not know, but you can get it for yourself if you look for it."
I therefore hope that some of this £1,400,000 will be spent by the Department on finding out something about office building in London. The Greater London Council is now being recommended to scrap any control on office building, and to encourage even more building of that type. I cannot believe that the Department is so insensitive to our problems in inner London that it will not act to get information about present availability of office space.
There has been a deplorable failure on the part of the Department, first, in not having the information; secondly, in not desiring to know; and, third, in being discourteous in its answers to hon. Members seeking to know about how areas in their constituencies can be improved.
The Department could also use some of that £1,400,000 on finding out something about housing starts. Housing starts make an interesting story. One has a lot of trouble getting information, because the Department acts on the basis that the Minister has already told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that he will not give that information.
I tried very hard to put down a Question, but the Minister's reply was that he did not keep such figures; if I wanted them I must find out for myself. On 31st March I asked for the total number of housing schemes for which he had given loan sanction, the number of dwellings involved in each, and the dates on which building was to begin. Under the Table Office rules I was not permitted to ask for starts. I had to phrase my Question in such a way as to encourage the Minister to be a little more helpful to me, so that I could tell my constituents a bit more about the Government's ideas. All that he said was that the figures were not available. I was very angry. I do not have to be told by the Minister that I can look at housing statistics. As one of those who gave

405
information at one time for such statistics, I know how fraudulent they are in the sense that they can never be up to date or give the information that is really wanted. They are out of date by the time they are published. They are an assessment of what the local authority thinks it will be able to do at some time in the future. My Questions were questions of fact as to how many starts the hon. Gentleman had authorised and how many had been made.
We could have accepted the hon. Gentleman's answer to some extent if he had not been willing and able to give figures of starts in the debate on 15th July, when he said:
"Housing starts in London for the first five months of this year rose from under 12,000 to nearly 16,000."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 799.]
The figures do not concern me particularly at present. What concerns me is the wilful refusal to give answers and the imputation that the Department does not have statistics, and then the discovery on 15th July that it not only had them but was prepared to publish them when it suited it just three months later. That is a deplorable way of running a country. When the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said just now that when Ministers give us an answer we should accept it, I thought of this debate. In view of what has happened, I feel that the doubts of my hon. Friends about the wisdom and veracity of the information given by the Government were only too well founded. Unless the Department changes its ways I shall have to joint the growing army of doubters. I hope that some of the money under consideration will be spent on ensuring that the Department can find out the number of starts.
Mr. Clinton Davies: On the question of research and statistics, is my hon. Friend aware that I and other hon. Members recently asked questions about the estimate the Department could make of the number and proportion of tenants in Outer London, Inner London and the London Borough of Hackney who were not paying controlled rents and who would have to pay fair rents pursuant to the White Paper? Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister indicated in his reply that there were about 300,000 uncontrolled tenancies in the Greater London
406
Council area but that it was not possible to provide separate estimates for Inner and Outer London or for individual London boroughs? Is not this a travesty when one has regard to the effect that the proposed legislation will have on constituencies such as mine and my hon. Friend's?
Mr. Brown: That is absolutely true. I can only hope that we can persuade the Minister to look seriously at this matter.
I have spoken about starts about which, it is said, there is no information in the Department or information which it will give only when it suits the Department to give it. I tried to get some information about housing waiting lists. As chairman of a very large housing authority for many years, I had to struggle at a time when the Conservative Government reduced subsidies to zero. I met every possible obstacle from the Conservative Government of that time. One of the basic elements which I had to know about was the housing waiting lists. I recall the discussions and arguments about its realism. Members of the Conservative opposition on my local authority asked me month after month whether I was satisfied that I knew enough about the waiting list and whether I was aware that they knew that Mrs. Jones was on the Greater London Council's waiting list and our waiting list and was probably on some other authority's list and therefore the number on the list could be divided by three because every applicant on our list was probably on two other lists? I always tried to be courteous to the Conservative Party members and so I searched in order to satisfy myself that I understood the position concerning the housing waiting list.
I put a Question to the Minister asking him whether he would tabulate the waiting lists of families registered in the inner London area, but again the Table Office refused me the right to table my Question on the basis that on 25th November the Minister had answered my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East to the effect that the information was not available. Now we are blocked from putting down Questions about the waiting list because the Minister chose to say in an answer that he had no figures and, apparently, was not interested in them.

407
The point about "Fair Deal for Housing" was that those in most need would get all that was going. But the Department apparently is not interested in knowing anything about the waiting list. It does not know the size of the problem or where it is. It does not know the migration of families seeking an authority which was building its property so that they would have a much better chance of being rehoused, which might indicate the drifting of families from one area to another; of people being pushed out of furnished accommodation in one London borough and arriving in another to go on the waiting list but having to wait during the two-year moratorium placed on them whereby if they move from the Finsbury part of my constituency, having been on the waiting list of Islington borough council for six years, into the Shoreditch part, a couple of yards across the road, they have to wait two years because in Shoreditch they come under the London Borough of Hackney. They have already come off the Borough of Islington's housing list because technically they have moved out of Islington.
This absurdity goes on, yet the Minister says "I do not want to know of the problem and I have no intention of finding out." It is extraordinary that in endeavouring to play his part in solving the problem, he wilfully refuses, as part of his departmental work, to understand the total housing needs in regard to the waiting list in the London boroughs.
I suggest that the Minister uses some of the £1,400,000 earmarked under this heading to commission a study to find out how many families are on the London waiting lists. This will show him the size of the problem; it will bring home to him the misery and hopelessness of many families in this situation. If he would like to know the figure in Islington, I can tell him that there are 9,000 to 10,000 such families; there is a similar figure for Hackney. I suggest he finds out more accurately than that the situation in all the inner London boroughs which are desperately trying to find a solution to their problems.
I also offer the Minister the figures in respect of homeless families. I have done my best to elicit this information, but I have not, of course, the information of
408
the hon. Gentleman's Department, which I understand is the largest Department in the whole governmental structure. However, that Department does not know the number of homeless families in London. I can tell the Government that in Lambeth some 1,159 people are homeless, in Islington there are 1,135 homeless families, and in Hackney 920.
I have many other such figures I could give the Minister. But this sort of job should not be the responsibility of a Member of Parliament. It should be the job of the Department. The hon. Gentleman should use some of the £1,400,000 in this Vote to inform himself on these vast problems facing the inner London areas so that he may take remedial action.
I should like to deal with the rent rebate scheme which was set out in the recent White Paper. This envisages a mandatory rent rebate scheme for all authorities in England and Wales. During the debate on the fair rent principle one hon. Gentleman opposite let the cat out of the bag by suggesting that the period in which rent rebate is paid in arrear should be similar to the period in respect of rate rebate. It was suggested that it would be unreasonable for employers to be asked to provide information on rent rebate on a five-weekly basis as against a six-monthly basis for rate rebate. Nowhere in the White Paper is it envisaged that the local authority would have to obtain from employers verification of a tenant's gross earnings. I have run a rebate scheme over many years, and I am proud of the fact we have never had recourse to employers. It is offensive. I cannot see any reason for it.
Let us consider the case of a young man, possibly a junior executive, who is not earning sufficient at the moment for a building society to give him a loan. As a result, for a short period he is obliged to live in a council house until he establishes himself or can find premises more to his taste. It may be that he cannot even afford the economic rent which the council will be forced by the Government to charge him. If he applies for a rebate, he will have to ask his employer to fill in a form on his behalf. That is quite outrageous. There is no mention of this in the White Paper, but, as I say, an hon. Gentleman opposite let the cat out of the bag.

409
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether it is the intention under the Government's mandatory scheme that local authorities will have to go to employers of council tenants in order to get verification every five weeks. If that is the idea, we should be told, so that we can inform council tenants in our constituencies what to expect when the terms of the White Paper are translated into legislation.
Before the Minister was in a position to introduce this mandatory scheme, I should have expected him to tell us the cost of running such a scheme. Those of us who have run schemes could tell him. But I am getting a little tired of supplying his Department with information that I should be getting from him.
Such a survey would tell the hon. Gentleman that, the greater the number who are entitled to rent rebate, the greater is the number of staff required to keep the necessary records. The bigger the records, the more one changes, the more frequently one ensures that a person receiving rebate is not receiving too much or too little, the more staff one requires to do it and the greater the cost on the scheme and, therefore, the less one saves.
With a modest scheme in the old days, on the basis of a fair rent and not the economic rent which now purports to be a fair rent, roughly one-seventh of an authority's tenants would have received rebate. One knows what the cost of doing that was. The Minister has chosen to argue the contrary case. He says that he will set economic rents. But they cannot be called "fair" rents. That must be nailed once and for all. If it were a fair rent under the 1965 Rent Act, every tenant would have the same rights as a tenant under that Act.
Recently, I tabled five Questions to the Minister asking for an assurance that council tenants will be treated in exactly the same way as any private tenant under the 1965 Act, to ensure that the fair rent is seen to be fair. I raised a series of issues. I argued that a tenant should be consulted about his rent. I argued that he should be entitled to have a friend at court, his surveyor, his lawyer, or his architect, as he is under the 1965 Act. I asked whether there would be an opportunity for a council tenant to have this paid for out of public funds.
410
I went through all these arguments, which are an integral part of the 1965 Rent Act. All that I got was an answer, lumping all those Questions together, saying that it was anticipated that there would be an administrative procedure. I take it from that reply that the answer was "No" to each of those Questions.
The Government are putting forward a fraudulent issue. They do not mean a fair rent as prescribed in the 1965 Act; they are talking about a rent which will be set by the local authority with no reference to the tenant. This will then be audited by some peculiar body, known as the chairman of assessment committees, or some such group, again with no reference to the tenant. Then the figure is fixed for three years, and the only change to be made will be in an upward direction for the following three years. Therefore, the tenant will at no stage be in a position, as he would be under the 1965 Act, of getting a rent which is seen to be fair between himself and his landlord.
I urge the Minister to drop this nonsense. Whenever the Government are pushed into a corner on this kind of issue, they turn round and say that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who introduced the fair rent scheme and that if it is good enough for the private sector it should be good enough for the public sector. I remind the Minister that they are not equal issues. Therefore, let us stop trying to equate the new system which he suggests is the same as that which was brought about by the 1965 Rent Act. Clearly they are not the same.
Under the scheme, it is likely, hazarding a guess, that 65 to 75 per cent. of tenants on any council estate will be in receipt of rent rebate. I may be wrong. I ask the Minister to tell me, from the statistics in his Department, how many tenants he anticipates will be in receipt of rent rebate when the rents are up to the economic rent, or the rent which will be assesed by this peculiar committee. I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman is in a position to say. "We have not done that exercise". Speaking as one with experience of local government and responsibility for introducing a rent rebate scheme, I point out that one of

411
the first things I had to do was to try to discover the financial implications and to know, in equity, what was to happen between one tenant and another. Therefore, I refuse to believe that the Department has not got the information.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in reply to a number of Questions which I put down for written answer today, the Minister for Housing and Construction said that he was unable to make the kind of estimates for which my hon. Friend is asking "since"—he says this somewhat synthetically, I think—
"they depend on so many variables such as the character of the dwellings for which fair rents are to be determined, the rate of progression of those rents and the incomes and family circumstances of the tenants."
Yet, was he not able to put forward some demonstrably bogus figures in the White Paper suggesting that many people would be better off?
Mr. Brown: Precisely. My hon. Friend has, as usual, put his finger on the nub of the issue. I hope that the Minister will take this matter seriously. I have said before that I do not think that he is serious about it.
It is impossible to embark upon a mandatory rent rebate scheme without having the information for which I have asked. No local government officer, no treasurer, will believe the hon. Gentleman if he says that he has not got it. Are we to understand that he has undertaken to contribute in the transitional subsidy 90 per cent. of the cost of rent allowances without knowing how much it will cost the Exchequer? Are we to understand that he will deprive local authorities of the freedom to act as they wish and force them to operate a predetermined scheme which he has not tested or the viability of which he has not proved? As the scheme has not ben tested, it is little short of scandalous that if the hon. Gentleman has issued propaganda to the effect that vast numbers of people will be better off and that nobody will be in need.
A computer is able to cope with an enormous amount of variables. Problems created by the varying time taken to go from the present rent levels to the new rent level which cause difficulty for a
412
human brain are easy for a computer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friend who deals with technology to assist him. The local authorities will lend him time on a computer to work out what it will cost. He is burdening the local authorities with the cost of rent rebates. Local authorities are entitled to ask him how much it will cost, because it is the ratepayer who will pay.
The facts should be explained to a council tenant, who is a ratepayer whose rents are deliberately being raised to an economic level, whose rates will be increased to pay for a scheme about which the Minister knows nothing, and who is a taxpayer who will have to pay the 90 per cent. which the Minister says the Government will pay. The council tenant is the only person who will come in for a complete financial hiding. His rents will rise to the maximum. His rates will rise to pay for the rebate scheme. His taxes will rise to pay for transitional subsidies. The Minister's hon. Friend who is buying his £25,000 house will not have his rent increased; he may have his rates and taxes increased like the council house tenant, but not his rent.
It is outrageous that the Minister appears to have no information about what the rent rebate scheme will involve. I hope that I am wrong and that the hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me what studies have been carried out and what assessments have been made of the number of tenants who are likely to be on rebate and of the cost in terms of the rate fund and of the transitional subsidy. Further, if there is too great a time lag between the date of recompense and the initial assessment' the amount of money overpaid will be so great that many tenants will be in debt and the total indebtedness of authorities will be very high. What is this figure likely to be, even working on a five-weekly basis? Perhaps the Minister will tell us how much of the £1,400,000 put down for research and services will be covered by this work on rent rebate schemes in his new deal for council tenants.
I come to the issue of open spaces. I have raised this before and I do not apologise for raising it again because in

413
London it is one of the most disgraceful stories we have ever had. Class VI, 16 A.5. provides £400,000 in grants for public open spaces. I do not know what the Minister has in mind for that £400,000. He will recall my drawing his attention to the only three open spaces planned for my constituency. There is Shepherdess Walk, Shoreditch Park and Haggerston Park. But we have no open spaces at present in my constituency—no trees, no grass, nothing. We have a society of people who are warehoused at a density of 200 persons to the acre, as distinct from the desirable areas outside London where the figure is 50 persons or fewer to the acre, where the streets are all tree-lined and grassed and are very desirable to live in.
That warehousing density was agreed to by the planning authority on the clear understanding that open spaces would be provided. But they have never been provided by the authority responsible for doing so. The authority has made some rather lethargic steps to try to establish them. I have been pressing them hard for seven years but they have been loth to do it for a variety of reasons, and I understand that. The Conservatives on the Greater London Council are not seized of the argument for providing open spaces. They cannot get money out of them, so why should they bother to spend the ratepayers' money, as they delicately put it, on providing open spaces in Shoreditch and Finsbury?
On 1st April, the Minister knew that the scheme proposed was fraudulent. The figures given by the G.L.C. to the London Boroughs Association were, I think, fraudulent. It was not given any figures to begin with. I submitted figures that I knew were not correct, and the G.L.C. was finally persuaded to produce figures.
The figures it produced were the same as the ones I had offered it. The Minister has accepted them as being the sort of financial parameters associated with the transfer of open spaces on 1st April. He knew that he was bound to correct the situation in my constituency over the delay in the provision of these spaces. I have been in constant contact with the Greater London Council and the London Borough of Hackney.
I put down a question to the Department. I received a silly answer which said that the Minister of State was not
414
aware of any delay. When I wrote to the G.L.C. and the London Borough of Hackney they were both aware of the delay and apologised. But he can only have got the information from one or the other. Yet he answers me in the House in a way which can only be called absolutely untrue. It was improper of him to say that he did not know of any delay when any inquiry of the G.L.C. or Hackney would have brought the same answer as I got.
One of the excuses which were given was that responsibility had been transferred from the G.L.C. to Hackney. Hackney did not want it, but the Minister said, "When we give freedom to local authorities, you do as you are told." When Hackney said that the cost would be enormous, the Minister said, "That does not matter: you will have it and we will not even let the House of Commons debate it."
The Shepherdess Walk site for an open space in my constituency has been under a compulsory purchase order since 1965 but it has still not been provided. Now Hackney must find new homes for the people living there, demolish the old homes and then meet the initial cost and the annual maintenance. Perhaps the Minister can say how much that will cost. When I was part of the team negotiating with the G.L.C., I argued that it was a very expensive job. The G.L.C. never told us what it would cost. It would only give an average maintenance cost per acre, and I did not believe the figure anyway.
The cost is so high that Hackney cannot do the work, yet the Minister has deliberately transferred this responsibility, and tells me that he is not aware of any delay. I hope that part of the Vote will be spent on finding out the cost of providing, for example, the Shepherdess Walk open space. I believe that I am entitled to that information from the Minister, since neither the G.L.C. nor Hackney can give me this information.
The stupid result of it all is that my constituents have to live in deplorable housing conditions, in homes which are being designated as unfit by the medical officer of health, yet the Minister sits in placid happiness, thinking that he can forget about it and leave my constituents to sweat it out.

415
I hope that we shall have some frank answers from the hon. Gentleman tonight. I have a great deal more to say, but I realise that the hour is late and I do not wish to detain the House. I want the Minister to take a little time to answer what I have put to him. We have waited a long time to question him, and we look forward to having an indication of his view on these matters and the setting up of research and survey groups in such areas as the ones to which I have drawn attention.
There is a pressing need for something to be done. My constituents have a right to expect the Government to show some sense of urgency.
2.31 a.m.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Well-beloved) on initiating this debate and showing how essential it is that the Government should re-examine the research services which are available to deal with the matters which he raised—Thames-mead and the rest—and, likewise, the matters raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), who put many searching questions to the Minister about problems affecting his constituency and, since we are neighbours, my constituency, too. I hope that his plea for a degree of frankness on the part of the Minister when he replies will be accepted.
The Minister has entirely failed to provide satisfactory answers to questions which we are entitled to put about the implementation of the proposals in the White Paper regarding fair rents and rent rebates. I have already alluded to the unsatisfactory answer which I have received. It is a facile answer, and, if the figures in the White Paper bear any credence at all, it is irreconcilable with the Government's ability to produce those figures. The real reason is that the provision of this information is disagreeable to them, because they want to produce bogus figures in order to hoodwink council tenants into believing that they will be better off, though we know that the vast majority will have swingeing rent increases. So they take refuge in the argument that they cannot make the estimates which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury has
416
rightly demanded because they depend on so many variables such as the character of the dwellings for which fair rents can be determined, the rate of progression of those rents, and the incomes and family circumstances of the tenants.
That argument has been totally exploded by my hon. Friend's searching analysis of the matter. As he said, the Government should have access to computers to enable them to overcome such problems.
Mr. Ronald Brown: Will my hon. Friend examine a little more closely the answer which he has received? The Minister said that it is impossible for his Department to give the facts because of the variations between individual properties. What does that imply for the Borough of Hackney, with 25,000 properties to examine? Are we to understand that every flat will be separately examined so as to enable the tenant to have his say about its condition?
Mr. Davis: These are mysteries which I do not have the sagacity to solve. The Under-Secretary ought to be frank and deal positively with this point.
There is a need for much clearer analysis and study to be undertaken by the Department of the Environment into some of the problems in the private rented sector, particularly in London, which give rise to real distress. I am not satisfied that the Francis Committee, which was supposed to have investigated in depth some of the scandals affecting the private rented sector, accomplished very much. Its approach, with respect, was somewhat synthetic over some of the problems I shall raise.
It is not altogether fair to blame the Francis Committee because the job of ferreting out these difficulties and scandals is primarily the responsibility of the Department. Given greater facilities for research and analysis, the Government would be alerted to some of these problems much earlier. They would therefore be in a position to introduce early legislation. They would not have to wait for inquiries such as Milner Holland to highlight matters which every councillor in inner London could have told them about.
Mr. Ronald Brown: And did.
Mr. Davis: And did. It took a Labour Government, two or three years later, to introduce some legislation which relieved a great deal of distress and anxiety occasioned to many tenants as a result of the operation of the 1957 Rent Act. This facility for research would enable local authorities to take action and alert local people to dubious practices undertaken in the locality. That would avert some of the consequences falling on to the shoulders of the local authorities.
I illustrate this argument by reference to one device employed by certain unscrupulous property owners to avoid the 1968 Rent Act, a device which unhappily started in my borough and which has occurred with great frequency there and apparently elsewhere. I refer to the scandal of deferred purchase. It is remarkable that the productivity of these unscrupulous property owners and dealers in circumventing the Act can only be matched by accountants and financial consultants in mitigating, as they call it, tax burdens. This device was worked out by a gentleman who started his operations in Hackney—at least he claims the authorship of this device. He has moved elsewhere. He may have moved his operations into wider spheres. That gentleman is a Mr. William Bach, whose offices are in Tottenham, although he is primarily concerned with developments in the Hackney area. He has a web of companies and firms: Horace Smith and Co. Ltd., Radcross Investment Co. Ltd., Symod Investment Co. Ltd., and Distinctive Builders Merchants Ltd. It is through these companies that the scandal of deferred purchase has been operated.
Unfortunately, it was not the local authority which highlighted what was happening. I do not think that it could be argued that it was unaware of what was happening, and I think that it was its bounden duty to inform the Department at the time of the practice. I am not sure that it fulfilled that duty adequately. It was the Sunday Times of 26th July, 1970, which drew attention to the practice in an article entitled,
"Exposed: a new Rent Act loophole".
It was one of the "Insight" articles. It referred to the property empire of Mr. William Bach. I want to pay tribute to the Sunday Times for exposing that gentleman, although it is not enough simply to expose him. It is vitally im-
418
portant that the Government take legislative action.
Last July, following that article and the calls which were made at my advice bureau by a number of my constituents, I raised the matter in a letter to the Secretary of State. His reply indicated that the matter was under study by the Francis Committee, which was considering the Sunday Times article. It said:
"There can be no question of amending the Act until the Committee's report has been received and studied."
At that time, the Government took refuge in the Francis Committee by suggesting that anything related to the Rent Act would have to await the outcome of the inquiry. But we have now had the Francis Committee Report and we still have no indication from the Government as to when they propose to introduce legislation to deal with this and other dubious devices. I do not regard the Francis Report as a panacea for all our problems and I am far from satisfied that the Government have any intention of dealing with these devices.
What is deferred purchase as understood and practised by Mr. Bach? It is an ingenious and possible legal circumvention of the Rent Act. Instead of renting flats he—and others like him—purports to sell them on 99-year leases. Then he permits the prospective purchasers to delay completion for anything up to two years. Sometimes, indeed, that period is exceeded. The purchasers are allowed into possession before completion. In the interim, the occupiers—the "purchasers"—pay interest on the purchase price. He uses the National Conditions of Sale, 17th edition, in order to negotiate the deal, but these recommend an interest rate of 5 per cent., and that is one place where he varies the situation, because he charges between 17 and 23 per cent. The interest rates are, generally speaking, approximately double the amount that would be the fair rent in respect of the properties concerned if they came to be dealt with by the rent officer or the rent assessment committee under the Act.
Mr. Bach is on to a very substantial profit at the expense of a number of unwary people who suffer a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety as a result of these activities. From the inquiries I have made, from the calls made at my advice

419
bureau, and from the inquiries which have been made by the Sunday Times, it is clear that Mr. Bach selects his victims very prudently indeed from his own point of view. In the main they are simple, gullible people in desperate need of housing accommodation, and more often than not they are immigrants. He persuades them to enter into a contract, but the purchaser cannot pay. He has no mortgage and, therefore, he occupies as a licensee or tenant at will, and he has no rights whatever under the Rent Act.
Yet the curious thing is that many of the people to whom I have spoken and many of those seen by the Sunday Times reporters were under the belief that they were not purchasers but tenants. They had no understanding of what they had agreed to, according to Mr. Bach's documentation, such as it was. It is my view, on looking at the facts, that he has deliberately nourished and cultivated these mistaken beliefs on the part of the "tenants". There is frequently a reluctance on his part to require completion, even after the two-year delay has expired. Still the occupier goes on paying interest.
The deception was nicely highlighted in the article in the Sunday Times. I propose to read only one paragraph which is very relevant indeed:
"On 5th June this year, a West Indian woman went with a friend to Bach's offices in St. Ann's Road. She wanted to rent a flat. Bach said he had one. When she was presented with papers to sign, however, she protested that there appeared to be an agreement to purchase. Bach reassured her. 'Never mind about that.' he said, 'it is simply for my protection, so you can't take me to the Rent Officer.' It also meant, he said, that he could not evict her."
That, of course, was untrue.
"She signed the agreement; and is now the bewildered 'contractual purchaser' of a 99-year lease."
Some of these people, not many, have gone to court, but because, in a sense, the burden of proof was upon them as plaintiffs, Mr. Bach was able to get away with it.
I am not convinced that the practices in which he has indulged have been free from deception; that is not the evidence as it has been presented to me. The extent of this gentleman's operations is difficult to gauge. He says that he owns
420
200 houses. If that is right, it would be interesting to know in how many he has developed these operations.
I know that a number of families have been evicted, and I suspect that many more have been caused untold unhappiness. I believe that there are many who find it inordinately difficult to pay these substantial payments by way of interest to Mr. Bach or his companies. How many there are so affected is a matter of some speculation. What I thought very interesting was that when I wrote to Mr. Bach in September, 1970, he replied fairly promptly to say, among other things:
"I must say that the article has had the reverse effect on my business to that intended by the Sunday Times as I have now many old regulated tenants requesting to be allowed to purchase on delayed completions so that they could obtain the benefit of the 1969 Finance Act and get tax relief on their interest payments as against no relief on rent payments, and have also had new applicants seeking the same arrangement."
That indicates his grotesque indifference to fact and reality. To argue that the sort of people he is dealing with are affected by those considerations is making his whole position utterly nonsensical. It is an affront to us that he suggests that he is performing a sort of social service by these activities. The point I am making in this regard is that the extent of these operations is not known, as it should be, and I believe that a great deal more research should be undertaken by the Department of the Environment into this and other matters to which I shall presently refer.
This abuse was dealt with by the Francis Committee at page 113 of its Report. It is interesting that the Francis Committee had to seek information from the Department about the extent of the practice. I do not think that it got the sort of reply upon which a positive report could be based, because I do not think that the Department really knew.
What was the remedy to be employed? The Francis Committee believed that local action might be taken in the sense that the people affected by these arrangements should become involved in litigation if at all possible. It said, secondly, that local authorities might consider bringing prosecutions to test the position on the ground that people of this sort, Mr. Bach and others, were failing to

421
comply with the statutory obligation under the Rent Act of a landlord towards the tenant of providing, for instance, a rent book. Although that might to some extent test the situation, certainly the penalty would not be serious and it would not deter Mr. Bach. The argument here, however, is concerned primarily not with penalties but with testing the situation in law. As far as I am aware, local authorities have refrained from taking action of that kind. Presumably they believe that there would be a great difficulty in establishing to the satisfaction of a criminal court that a criminal offence was involved.
The Francis Committee by and large thought that legislation should not be invoked because the existing law was satisfactory and that purchasers or tenants, whatever one might call them, could take a civil remedy themselves. I am not satisfied that that is right, because a large number of people who are entitled to certain remedies under the Rent Act are unaware of those remedies and the redress that they could obtain. That was why the Government spent a good deal of money on advertising the basic provisions of the Rent Act during the past year, but I do not think that it has made a great impact. It has not really improved the knowledge of many people—the unwary, the gullible—of what the Rent Act is all about and what their entitlements are.
But I can also say in this regard that when we had the scandal of the 22-year lease—and, incidentally, Mr. Bach claims the authorship of that idea, too—which was a device that got round the Rent Act, the only way in which it could be cured was by legislation, and this was done by a Labour Government. It is my belief that it is only by legislation that an effective cure of this abuse can be achieved, but it would be helpful if, in the interim, the Department made quite sure that local authorities alerted people to the very real hazards of getting engaged in the dubious operations of people like Bach, who are only out to deceive and swindle these very poor people who are in such great housing need.
Another abuse with which it is important to deal was raised not long ago in a debate by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Cities of London and
422
Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat)—the bogus schedule of dilapidations. Attention was drawn to this abuse initially by the Evening News. We have no knowledge of how widespread this abuse is. The case raised, to his credit, by the hon. Member occurred in Westminster, but is the abuse very much more widespread than that? Where else is it occurring? What is its incidence?
The Minister, replying to that debate, thought that effective action could be taken under the Theft Act. He will correct me if I am wrong in my recollection. He suggested that some criminal remedy was available. I have looked at the Theft Act, and if he was, as I assume, referring to Section 21, that Section deals with blackmail. It provides:
"A person is guilty of blackmail if, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, he makes any unwarranted demand with menaces; and for this purpose a demand with menaces is unwarranted unless the person making it does so in the belief—
(a) that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand;
and
(b) that the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand."
I am a lawyer, and I believe that in these particular instances it would be very difficult to sustain a prosecution under Section 21 of the Theft Act. The defence inevitably would be that the property owner had been advised by his surveyors to present the particular schedule of dilapidations; that they might have been wrong or in error, but he would have acted, so he would allege, in good faith on the basis set out by his own advisers. I do not think that a prosecution could get off the ground. I regret to say that, because I think that this is an abuse which ought to be remedied and for which there should be prosecution, but there is not much point in prosecuting unless the prosecution has a real prospect of success.
So I ask the Minister to deal with the matter, though perhaps not tonight, because although I have discussed it with him it might not be possible or convenient for him to deal with legal argument now. Perhaps, therefore, he will write to me or find some way of investigating the position.
There is another abuse which to my own personal knowledge causes a great deal of anxiety amongst tenants. That is

423
the abuse of the pseudo-furnished tenancy, which was also dealt with in the Francis Report. I am not sure of its extent, but, both professionally and in my capacity as a Member of Parliament, I have been approached by many people who have not known whether their premises were furnished or unfurnished when a few sticks and bits are in their flat. It is sometimes very difficult even for a court to determine. That abuse can be cured only if furnished and unfurnished tenancies are dealt with on a similar basis.
The Minister for Housing and Construction has conceded that a tenant at present may not know whether to go to the rent officer or the rent tribunal. If he goes to the rent officer and it turns out, in an action for a declaration before the county court, that the tenancy in question was furnished, he may well have lost his rights, because the notice to quit has expired, and he will be without defence to a claim for possession. But if he goes to the rent tribunal he may well have chosen the wrong course. It is the view not only of lawyers but of most London magistrates who have studied the problem that it cannot be cured unless furnished and unfurnished tenancies are put on a comparable basis.
I turn to the question of harassment. It is remarkable that the figures for prosecutions and successful prosecutions in the London area are as low as they are. These are the figures given in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham): in the Metropolitan Police District in 1967 there were 96 prosecutions and 55 convictions: in 1968 there were 88 prosecutions and 42 convictions; in 1969 there were 96 prosecutions and 67 convictions; and in 1970 there were 54 prosecutions and 39 convictions. At no time in the whole of the metropolitan district have the local authorities concerned been able to reach the figure of 100. It is remarkable. I can hardly believe that those figures represent the totality of the problem. There are reticent local authorities who are disinclined to prosecute. I know that in many instances witnesses are intimidated—we find it extremely difficult to provide proof of that—and will not come forward because of their fears.
424
Other local authorities, although willing to institute proceedings, find that there is grave doubt about whether the prosecutions will succeed. The reason is that harassment is not always overt action by an unscrupulous landlord to make life intolerable for a tenant. It is not simply a question of the use of bully boys. Such cases can perhaps be proved, leaving aside the element of intimidation. There is the subtle and systematic process of harassment that goes on day in and day out. My hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury and I, representing parts of the Borough of Hackney, know that this goes on. The landlord makes a great deal of noise, for example. It is not easy to prove, because the tenant does not bring in independent witnesses to establish that that is happening. If he does, the landlord soon gets to know of it and does not make the noise at that time; or if he gets part of the property vacant, and his real design is to get vacant possession of the whole, he will, quite deliberately, bring in some undesirable tenants who he knows will, and perhaps he even encourages them to do so, make life impossible for tenants who have lived in the house and whom he wants to get out. This goes on in every Inner London borough, and I am sure that it is known to the Department. But there is a real problem in adducing the evidence. We want to know how widespread is the incidence of these scandals, and this calls for much more detailed research.
What has happened to all the advertisements pursuant to the Rent Act which we had from the Ministry in the last 12 months? What has been the success of that campaign? What is to be the future campaign, how much is to be spent, and how? Are local authorities to be consulted—they were not consulted last time—in order to determine the best method of promoting advertising campaigns? These are matters of vital concern. If they are not dealt with, and if the Government are not frank and honest in their answers to the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury, there will be a tidal wave of discontent among not only council tenants but private tenants. If the Government are genuine in their anxiety to present the facts, they will not hesitate to present them.

425
There is no greater affront to a civilised society than the squalor, abuse and unscrupulous activity which goes on in the private housing sector. We have no real conception of the social cost of the enterprises of unscrupulous landlords or property owners. We have no way of measuring the anxiety and misery which their clever devices cause. What each one of us who represents an inner London constituency does know is that our "surgeries" are crowded week in and week out with people who are having to live in squalor, and some of whom are having to face the results of these activities. I hope that this debate will have caused some advertisement of what is happening in London and, much more important, will encourage the Government to be less complacent and to decide in the very near future to take firm action against these unscrupulous people, because it is only firm action that they understand and respect.
3.8 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): The peg for this debate has been the alleged need for further research into the various matters raised by the three hon. Members who have spoken in it. I have come prepared to tell the House, at some length if necessary, some of the details of the research programmes of the Department. However, it would probably help the House more if I were to concentrate on answering some of the questions raised in the debate. I hope that I shall be forgiven if I leave out some questions or if I am not in a position to answer others now. If I omit to deal with points about which I can give further information, I shall endeavour to get in touch with hon. Members or perhaps they will get in touch with me, because I have no wish to shirk the questions put in the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) on initiating this debate and on the ingenious way in which he managed to deal with so many issues in his interesting remarks. However, I wish first to answer the comments of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). I reject the suggestion that the Government are complacent about any of the abuses that the hon. Gentleman has alleged take place in regard to the Rent
426
Acts. My right hon. Friend has made clear time and again that we are determined to do what we can to stamp out any abuses in the working of the Rent Acts.
I am not sure that I accept the suggestion of the need for further research. The hon. Gentleman may not have a very high view of the Francis Committee Report, which I regard as an extremely valuable work, but nobody will deny that it represents a most massive volume of research. The Committee has reported only in the last few months, and the Government are engaged in reviewing all its recommendations. My right hon. Friend has already announced a number of the Government's conclusions on some of the recommendations. We are now engaged in a detailed study of all the recommendations and suggestions in the report, and I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are further studied by my right hon. Friend.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of the bogus schedule of dilapidations. The House may recall that in the debate on London housing last week I made the situation clear:
"This is already an offence under the criminal law."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 795.]
The hon. Member for Hackney, Central, who has much greater legal experience than I, said that it was done under the Theft Act. I can find no reference to the Theft Act.
Mr. Clinton Davis: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. That was my impression of what he said. I withdraw the remark if that was not the Act to which he was alluding.
Mr. Channon: In case the hon. Gentleman's remarks on this subject are given publicity, I shall be sorry if the impression gets abroad that this is not an offence under the criminal law if it clearly is. It would be in everybody's interest to set out the provisions under which it is an offence, or is believed by us to be an offence. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would put down a Question for Written Answer so that we may attempt to make the matter clear.
If there are any difficulties of law, it might be better that the matter should be publicly known. My advice—and I am not a lawyer—is that this is already

427
an offence under criminal law. I do not have any evidence that it is very widespread. Allegations have been made that this is happening in Pimlico, but I do not think that is a matter on which I should comment.
I am sure all hon. Members would wish to congratulate the Evening News on its series of articles and also my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) on his action in raising this matter. There are also a number of civil remedies open to people who are in this situation, but it is clear that the matter is also a criminal offence.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of harassment. The best evidence on this matter is to be found in the Francis Committee's Report, which went into the matter with great care. I think the best statement on this matter is to be found on page 109: speaking of harassment and unlawful eviction, the report says:
"We think there is little evidence of either outside the stress areas. In the stress areas, they are to be found mainly in multi-occupied houses where the landlord lives on the premises, and usually in furnished houses. The actual extent of harassment and unlawful eviction is difficult to assess but it is probably of significant proportions in the stress areas among furnished tenants …".
On the other hand, it goes on to say that the complaints made to provincial police forces in the last couple of years have been few, whereas in London the complaints made to the Metropolitan Police numbered 1,104 in 1969 and 1,279 in 1970, though it is true that many more complaints have been made direct to local authorities. Where there is evidence of harassment, it is right for local authorities to prosecute, and they do in many cases.
One of the conclusions in the Francis Report on which the Government have made policy statements has been that we intend to increase the penalties for harassment and illegal eviction. The penalties are very low at present. The Francis Committee recommends that they be increased, and the Government consider that it is well worth doing.
The problem of deferred purchase is an important one. We have all read the article in the Sunday Times. Again, I make no comment on the validity of the
428
argument; nor is it appropriate for me to comment on its accuracy or on the remarks which the hon. Gentleman made about people in this House.
The hon. Gentleman said on 15th July that the scandal of deferred purchase had affected a large number of people in his constituency. If that is the case, it is his duty to bring any instances which come to his notice either to the attention of the local authority or to that of my right hon. Friend, though preferably that of the local authority. I understand that, despite his having said what he did, the hon. Gentleman has brought no cases to the attention of his local council. If he has brought some, I hope that he will continue to do so.
Mr. Clinton Davis: The short answer is that the local authority is aware of all the cases that have come to my attention.
Mr. Channon: I am glad to hear that, and I am sure that it is extremely helpful.
There are two methods of tackling the problem of deferred purchase, and the hon. Gentleman fairly quoted from that section of the Francis Committee's Report dealing with evasions. The Committee itself recommended two alternative courses. As it stands, the law is capable of dealing with such a transaction, if it is an offence. The Francis Committee pointed out that in cases where an abuse of the Rent Act takes place, a single successful court case very often can dispose of an abuse very quickly.
The Francis Committee said:
"The quickest way of disposing of any abuse … would be a court decision that the 'contracts to purchase' … are mere devices to evade the Rent Act, and are not genuine contracts but are intended only to effect a transfer of possession in return for a payment which is really rent."
No local authority has brought a criminal case on these grounds, but I am advised that a criminal case on the grounds of deferred purchase would be very likely to succeed.
If there is a loophole in the Rent Acts and it is not a criminal offence, my right hon. Friend will have to consider the matter in his review of the Rent Acts, in the light of the Francis Committee Report. At the moment, I am advised that it is a criminal offence.

429
There is also a civil remedy. I must be careful what I say——
Mr. Clinton Davis: With respect, the point that the Francis Committee made was that the deferred purchase itself was necessarily a criminal offence, but that the validity of the contract could be tested only by determining whether a rent book should be provided. It was a device to ascertain the law.
Mr. Channon: The best thing that I can do is to refer hon. Members interested in the problem to the last paragraph on page 114 and the opening paragraph on page 115. There are a number of possible courses which might be preferable: for example, failing to provide a rent book or charging a premium for the grant of a protected tenancy.
Civil litigation can also be initiated by a party to one of the agreements. There is a civil case pending in the courts—I will not go into the details—in which I understand that this point is likely to be tested. It would be unwise for me to deal with that matter now, but it is important and we shall have to watch it very carefully.
The hon. Members for Hackney, Central, Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown), and Erith and Crayford, asked about the proposals for rent rebates. I cannot give them a great deal more information tonight. There is a section in "Fair Deal For Housing" devoted to rent rebates. Hon. Members will see from that that the rent rebate scheme is, by most people's standards, more generous than any similar schemes which have been operated in the past in most parts of the country. I think that the scheme will be widely welcomed.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury in a long speech—I am not sure that his hon. Friends will appreciate the fact that he spoke for nearly an hour and probably made it more difficult for them to get into debates later tonight; that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to sort out—was so polemical about the matter, as if rent rebate schemes had never been heard of before. The hon. Gentleman knows that all but one of the local authorities in London have operated such schemes. This is not a wide, strange,
430
brave new world into which the Government are asking local authorities to move. Many authorities have operated rent rebate schemes. Our evidence is that about 60 per cent. of local authorities throughout the country operate rent rebate schemes. Therefore, about 40 per cent. of local authorities have no rent rebate schemes at all.
That is not a situation which hon. Members on both sides of the House could possibly think is satisfactory. Indeed, the Labour Government thought it proper to advise local authorities that there should be reasonable rent rebate schemes. I think it comes ill from the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury to say that this is a reprehensible and terrible new area to enter.
Mr. Ronald Brown rose——
Mr. Channon: I may be slightly misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman. I do not mean to infer that he is against the idea of rent rebate schemes. However, he made heavy weather about it. I have other comments to make to the hon. Gentleman, but if he wishes to interrupt I will give way to him.
Mr. Brown: I was asking whether any researches had been undertaken to find out whether the proportion of tenants who will be expected to take up the rebate will be higher than the figure which would have been expected under normal circumstances. Now that the rent level will be so much higher——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember the length of the speech which he has already made and will appreciate that a number of hon. Members are still waiting to raise subjects which are important to them.
Mr. Channon: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central has already pointed out the virtual impossibility of giving the varying formulae and conditions which are applied. It is impossible to estimate how many people will qualify for rent rebate. The important point, which hon. Gentlemen have failed to dent in recent debates, is that for the first time in our history we shall have a scheme under which any tenant of unfurnished premises, whether in the private or the public

431
sector, will be able to get a rent rebate or allowance to enable him to meet the cost of his rent if he cannot afford it. It is a step forward of tremendous consequence in housing and in the social sphere and one which is widely welcomed outside the House, even if there are carping critics inside the House who, I am sure, bitterly regret that they did not do it themselves.
I will consider all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised and see whether I can give him further information. It is a little hard for him to speak for about 10 minutes in criticism of our not having a full list of every local authority's housing list in the Department. It has been the practice of all Governments not to collect such information, because it is considered to be meaningless. I do not recall when the Labour Party was in government the hon. Gentleman criticising his right hon. Friends for not assembling that information. What was so acceptable when the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friends were in power suddenly becomes reprehensible now that we are in power.
I ask the House to consider whether it should take these arguments seriously or whether they are not almost wasting the time of the House, particularly when there are so many other subjects to deal with.
No doubt it is the hon. Gentleman's policy to pretend that these will not be fair rents. No doubt he and his colleagues are bitterly ashamed of introducing a fair rent in the private sector but providing no rebate or allowance for those who could not pay it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman is bitterly jealous of a Government which have introduced fair rents in the public and private sectors and rebates and allowances for those who cannot pay.
These are fair rents. There will be details to be worked out in the application because of different circumstances. The principle of the fair rent will apply in the public and the private sectors. That, too, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's strictures, has been widely welcomed outside the House.
I do not think that the arguments that the hon. Gentleman has advanced cut any ice whatsoever outside the House.
432
They cut no ice in London, which will benefit so particularly from the proposals announced by my right hon. Friend last week. Any hon. Member representing an Inner London constituency should examine his conscience before criticising the Government's proposals, which are designed so much to help the Inner London boroughs, as my right hon. Friend was able to prove during the recent debate.
The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford has raised the question of Thames-mead over many years. He probably knows more about Thamesmead than any man alive. I do not agree with all his conclusions about it and I am not sure that I can answer all the questions he asked. I will study what he has said. The hon. Gentleman said that the costs will be too high and the conditions are not good enough. One reason why the hon. Gentleman is frightened about the costs is that he thinks that rents will be too high because of the costs. That assumption is completely out of date because, with the introduction of the fair rent scheme, the cost of the rents that will be paid at Thamesmead, as indeed for any other local authority dwelling, will be fair rents. They will not be based upon the cost, whether high or low, of any building scheme. It will no longer be any good for the hon. Gentleman to say that it has cost so much money to put up Thamesmead that the rents will have to be so high that it is ghastly for his constituents. These people will be assessed to fair rents in the same way as all other local authority tenants.
Mr. Wellbeloved: That is not my main argument. My main argument is that, because of the circumstances surrounding this development, the public expenditure is not realistically related to the number of units being constructed. I fear for the number of people who will ultimately be re-housed if the average unit cost is £12,000. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman can defend such an average cost.
Mr. Channon: Fortunately, I am not in a position where I shall have to defend that proposition. I will dispose of the rents point, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to return to it, as it has no validity in the future. Of course Thamesmead is a very difficult,

433
low-lying, marshy site. It was the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the G.L.C. who decided to build on the site. They did so in the full knowledge of the difficulties of the site. Anyone who has visited the site, as the hon. Gentleman has and as I have had the pleasure of doing, will know that it is a very difficult one. The hon. Gentleman, who is deeply concerned about the problem of London housing, as all hon. Members are, must face the fact that Thamesmead will make an invaluable contribution to meeting London's desperate housing shortage. Not many of his hon. Friends would agree with him if he is arguing that we should not go ahead with Thamesmead.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am not arguing.
Mr. Channon: I am glad to hear that because for years the hon. Member has been arguing that it is too expensive and a great waste of public money. The logical conclusion of his arguments is that we should stop the scheme. It is making a valuable contribution to meeting the problem of London's housing shortage, and I believe we should go ahead with it. I challenge the hon. Member to say we should not.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I respond to the challenge. That is precisely the point I am not making. I do not say we should abandon it. I challenged the Government to hold an inquiry into the scheme in order that it could proceed on a sounder financial basis, and this is the question the Minister is avoiding.
Mr. Channon: I have not come to it yet. I am glad to have it from the hon. Member that he wishes the scheme to go ahead, because that is not the impression which leaps to mind when reading his speeches.
It is impossible to give the overall cost of Thamesmead at this stage. But preliminary application by the G.L.C. for subsidy purposes on the erection costs of stage one has been considered. The application suggests a tentative figure, which I cannot be held to in the future, £6,000 per dwelling, as eligible for housing subsidy. That is a far cry from the hon. Member's £12,000. I will look at the other detailed points he raised and if there is further information that I can give him I will attempt to do so.
434
I am not sure I can tell the hon. Member a great deal more tonight except on the point of condensation. He will have read the new bulletin on research by my Department in the past few months which will be of benefit to a tenant who is unfortunate enough to meet this ghastly problem. I know the main point he raised was rain penetration, and that is largely a matter for the G.L.C., which is well aware of his views. It would not be fair to other hon. Members to take up any more time on this debate. We shall have other housing debates with the Housing Bill, and we can discuss detailed points then.
We are introducing for the first time in this country an original reform of housing which should have been done long ago. It will divert the subsidy to the areas and the people most in need. Those who oppose it will be saying in effect that they do not like a subsidy system concentrated on the people and the areas most in need. If they wish to take that stance, they may do so, but I do not think that the country will support them.

MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES
3.35 a.m.
Mr. Ernie Money: I am glad of the opportunity to raise this vitally important subject, but I am sorry that, particularly after his courtesy to me on other occasions, the Minister has had to be kept here until the early hours, although I am glad to see him in his usual ebullient form.
In this matter, which affects the House and the nation immediately, time is not on our side. We are a great collecting nation. Ruskin suggested that this was because we did not have many major artists of our own, but that is not altogether true. What is transparently evident—one has only to bear in mind the Claude Exhibition at the Hayward Gallery last year or the current exhibition of Her Majesty's Dutch pictures, or the Dulwich Gallery or the catholic nature of the collections at the National Gallery—is that for centuries we have been a major example of intelligent connoisseurship.
In any of the great houses of Britain which are on view—whether supported

435
by the State, in the shape of Apsley House and Audley End, or by the National Trust or in private hands—one can see enough to realise just how rich this heritage still is. Above all it is a heritage which has been freely available to the public for many years. It has been built up over the years by those who have loved the fine arts for their own sake. As the current report of the National Gallery Trustees points out:
"Out of a total of some two thousand pictures owned by the Gallery, nearly two-thirds have been given, bequeathed or purchased wholly from funds given or bequeathed. Only one-third of the pictures in the collection has been bought wholly out of Gallery funds; excluding the sums paid out of the land fund for a handful of great pictures ceded in lieu of estate duty under the Finance Act of 1956, the whole collection in Trafalgar Square has cost the nation less than £4½ million."
This is not to say that mistakes have not been made. One has only to point to three events to show how bitter some errors of judgment have been—the dispersal of a major part of the collection of Charles I under the Commonwealth, the loss of the Walpole pictures from Houghton Hall, which now form so important a part of the Hermitage Collection of Leningrad, and the break-up of the great collection of Old Master drawings formed by Sir Thomas Lawrence in the middle of the last century. These are all occasions which I believe we would now do anything to reverse.
It was that last episode which led Sir Charles Eastlake, then the Keeper of the National Gallery, to wait upon Lord Chancellor Brougham with regard to the possibility of saving the works of the Lawrence Collection for the country in 1831. The French Ambassador of the day, Talleyrand, was present at that meeting. When told the purpose of the visit, his comment—which, knowing my hon. Friend's erudition, I am sure I will not have to translate—was:
"Si vous n'âchetez pas ces choses-là, vous êtes des barbares."
Nevertheless, the then Prime Minister, Lord Grey, did not make the purchase—a decision which proved calamitous for collecting in this country in that field.
I hope that this is not the sort of criticism which can be levelled against
436
this present enlightened Administration by a future age. It is not one which could always be levelled against British Governments—to their great credit. The foundation of the National Gallery itself in 1824, when this House voted the not inconsiderable sum in those days of £60,000 for the purchase of the Angerstien collection, was an act of faith on the part of Lord Liverpool's Administration at a time when the nation was struggling with the effects of a long and exhausting war, the temporary collapse of British trade, and a situation of serious unemployment throughout the country.
To take another example, in 1918, when the Lloyd George Government were faced with the gravest crisis of the whole First World War, a special grant was made for the purchase of major works by Ingres, Delacroix and Manet from the sale in Paris of the collection of the great painter Degas, who had died in the previous year.
I quote one further instance. In 1906 the National Gallery acquired—not by any means in the most propitious circumstances for our affairs—a painting which is now one of its major assets, the Rokeby Venus of Velasquez. The National Gallery purchase grant at that time—and these facts are worth noting—was £5,000, and the price of the picture was £50,000. The efforts of the National Art-Collections Fund made its acquisition possible. Incidentally, I am glad that my noble Friend the Paymaster-General has been able to make a season ticket concession for gallery admissions to members of that fund as a token of its extreme importance. Through the efforts of the National Art-Collections Fund, the whole of the balance of £45,000 was raised in order to stop that masterpiece then leaving the country.
The present Government are spending more money on the arts than any previous Administration has done, and I pay tribute to them for that. We have a Minister with special responsibility for the arts who has been an enlightened collector for years, with a great love for both pictures and objects. In this House we have as his representative a most sympathetic and intelligent spokesman.
Nevertheless, we are in real danger of falling into a serious dichotomy on the

437
question of acquisitions for the nation. At the risk of trespassing on the time of the House at this hour, I shall briefly outline one or two aspects of this situation.
It seems to me that there exists a quite unnecessary contradiction in the Government's policy on capital works and their policy on preserving major works of art. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) pointed out in the Chamber only the other day, the proper criterion was made abundantly clear only a few weeks ago by no less an authority than my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who, when opening the Grosvenor House Antiques Fair, said:
"On the question of keeping works of art in this country, there are some who say that whatever is here ought to remain here. This is not a philosophy with which I find myself entirely in agreement. We have benefited much in the past with treasures from other lands. It seems a narrow view that they should never leave our shores. Nevertheless"—
these are the significant words—
"there are some things which we would wish to keep here, and it behoves the Government to look to the future to see what we want to keep in our own land, and we should make the utmost efforts to retain those here".
I am sure that no sane person who is concerned with this matter will disagree with that philosophy. No one among those who are involved with this subject has ever suggested a policy of universal retention, even in the case of major works of art. Of course, we have suffered grievous losses. The Oscott lectern and the Radnor Velasquez are examples. But the case really turns on what my right hon. Friend, than whom there was never a first Minister who cared more for these matters, meant in the passage which I have quoted—here I paraphrase a little—
"Nevertheless there are some things which we would wish to keep, and it behoves the Government to look to the future and see what we should make the utmost efforts to retain".
We are meeting tonight under the shadow of the position regarding the Titian. It is not for me to pass judgment about this picture. I remind the House what has been said by the Chairman of the Standing Committee, Lord Rosse, that this is indeed a very great work of art. I do not think that anyone, least of all my hon. Friend, with his public utterances would deny that the loss of this painting would be incalcul-
438
able. If we accept that a gallery can be a work of art, in the sense that I believe the Frick Gallery is, or the Rijksmuseum, or the Louvre, or the exquisite Musée Unter Den Linden at Colmar, which I visited the other day with the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds), are, then the presence of this picture at Trafalgar Square has a real significance of its own.
To see in the Venetian Gallery there the work of this major master, ranging from the Ariadne and Bacchus of his early manhood to the Diana and Actaeon of his consummate age, must be one of the richest experiences of the human spirit.
How, then, is this great picture to be saved for us? I am well aware that only this morning the Review Committee will meet to consider this question. To that extent my hon. Friend may feel, as he has said earlier, that his hands are tied. It would be idle to suggest that the decision made by that distinguished body can be other than a recommendation that we should attempt to secure this painting for our successors and if this recommendation is made, as I believe it must be, how are we to put this into effect on behalf of the nation?
First and foremost, it is right that we should go on record at this stage as saying that the price involved is, despite what has been said about speculative prices, a containable one. Of the sum of £1·68 million the National Gallery has already gone on record as saying that from its existing endowments and grants it could put forward £400,000 and the National Art Collections Fund has said it would give the bulk of its assets, in the form of £100,000. The Gallery has gone further and put forward to the Government the suggestion that it should mortgage, if that is the word, £100,000 a year from its purchases grant over the next six years. The feasibility of this idea must be borne out by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on 23rd July when he said:
"We must recall that the present rate of £2 million per year from 1970–71 allows for forward planning up to 1974–75."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July 1971; Vol. 821. c. 1839.]
If this is so it would leave a residue, allowing for a commission estimated at £50,000, of only £630,000 to be dealt with. It is right to consider at this point that the Treasury gained no less than £344,000 from the residue bequeathed to

439
the Gallery of Sir Robert Hart in the form of money or moneys worth. It is right to consider that if this bequest had been left in the form of works of art no such sum would have gone to the Treasury. One hopes that the Government will look sympathetically at that sum as being morally something which they can advance, certainly in the light of their previous generosity towards the Gallery over the Leonardo Cartoon.
If this attitude were taken, it would leave a comparatively small sum only to be raised by public subscription and by organisations which have been generous in the past to these appeals, such as the Pilgrim Trust and the Gulbenkian Foundation, which no doubt would be happy to approach this on the basis which has been taken by previous Administrations—on a £ for £ subscription with regard to the assistance that could be given by the Government.
I want to deal with two falacies which have been of considerable concern to those involved with these affairs. The first is the suggestion, which has been made more than once, that it is the policy or intention of the National Gallery to try to keep every major work of art in this country. I recall what was said by my hon. Friend in reply to me on 26th March last. Not specifically in relation to the National Gallery but in a rather broader conclusion on the subject he said:
"… I recognise that there will always be those who cannot bear to see any treasure ever leave this country for any reason at all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1971; Vol. 814, c. 1080.]
He was more specific to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock on 23rd July, when he said:
"The problem therefore relates to particular works of art and to particular institutions. For my own part, I much admire the trustees of the National Gallery in their determination to acquire or to keep here virtually every masterpiece which past good fortune has enabled us to enjoy, and so doing, I say it respectively, nothing less than their duty. But the Government have a wider responsibility. They have to ask themselves, the brutal question of what could be done even in the field of the arts with the sums of money which would have to be found for massive purchases of this kind. So I look at certain other possible ways forward."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1840.]
It is right to stress that that has never been the policy of the National Gallery,
440
nor has it ever tried to achieve it. What it has sought to do is to meet the criterion considered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he says that there are some works which are so important that it behoves the Government, acting on behalf of the nation, to keep them here for future generations to enjoy.
The second matter is a suggestion which has also been made more than once and had even been given certain credence by some remarks of my hon. Friend the Paymaster-General—that there are a large number of masterpieces in the possession of the National Gallery which are not on show to the public. In reply to this, I quote the report of the trustees for the current year:
"All too many people are still under the delusion that there are unexhibited treasures in what are sometimes described as 'the cellars of the National Gallery'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Except for over a hundred pictures which are on long term loan to provincial galleries, and a few pictures on loan for Government purposes"—
which includes pictures on loan to Lancaster House or to No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street——
"or for temporary exhibition or withdrawn for conservation, the whole collection is on view to the public at Trafalgar Square. Some pictures in the Reserve Collection, which is open to the public, are too closely hung. This will be remedied when our new building to which we refer later is completed. But we have long held it to be our duty to exhibit virtually everything that we possess."
It is right to stress that although it is a matter of great public concern that the public should be given the best possible opportunity of seeing not only these pictures but pictures in museums generally, the circumstances in which this major national collection was built up were those in which the first importance went to the collection rather than to its exhibition. When one considers the pictures in the National Gallery in the mid or late 19th century, one sees that the emphasis then is on the pictures rather than on the conditions in which they are being shown. I have dealt with the immediate problem and I should like now to repeat some of the suggestions for long-term answers which I have put to my hon. Friend before and to add one or two more. On 26th March my hon. Friend was good enough to say that he would consider with his noble Friend the Paymaster-General the questions of what we referred to on that occasion as the hire-purchase

441
scheme and that of a public lottery, and he may have some news tonight about those matters. However, I should like to refer to another suggestion in the form of a quotation which may have been forgotten over the years. I quote from a report of the Committee of the Trustees of the National Gallery in 1915:
"The suggestion has been made that the proceeds of the existing death duties on works of art should be earmarked for the purchase of pictures. There does not seem to be, either in principle or in practice, any valid objection to such an appropriation of the proceeds of taxation. The difficulty is that owing to the way in which death duties are levied and collected, the revenue rising from works of art has not hitherto been kept separate from that provided by other objects. We are advised, however, that it would be quite feasible for the Treasury to direct that the account should be kept in such a form in future as to show separate amounts. Indeed, it may be contended that as the State is thus already in possession of an annual revenue from works of art, it ought to know, and the country ought to know, the extent to which art is thereby penalised, and the preparation of a separate account should be accepted as a duty of the Government."
It is right to stress for the record that that was not merely a report put forward by a committee of do-gooders or well-wishers; it was a report prepared by the Trustees of the National Gallery under the chairmanship of no less a figure than that of Marquess Curzon, and it would be hard to find a more practical approach to the arts than is connected with that notable statesman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock sought to raise, but was not able to raise in an Adjournment debate, although, happily, I hope I am in a position to do so, the whole question of a tourist tax, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to look carefully at that, particularly the interesting figure——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I may have misheard the hon. Member, but if I did not, it would be out of order to refer to taxation in this debate.
Mr. Money: I thought I was within the terms of the debate by mentioning fiscal means of assisting the arts, but I will leave that.
Another means immediately open to the Minister for assisting the arts is the use of the Land Fund. I should be grateful for his comments on that and on the extent to which that fund has been used to subsidise estate duty transactions of
442
this sort and whether it could be used effectively to subsidise acquisitions of the sort for which a special contingency fund is necessary.
I stress that this is not a matter of a basic contradiction between faith and works. It is not an instance when the Government can say that they are doing the works in the shape of developments to gallery extensions and gallery improvements and when all acquisitions may be shrugged off on to the galleries under their current purchase grants.
At this hour, I certainly do not trespass on the House to go into the subject in detail, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider carefully particularly the saddening story of the Domenichino, which led to a position where a work which had been enjoyed in a particular atmosphere in a certain gallery for well over 150 years was transferred to another gallery in a different part of the country. All that happened in those circumstances was that almost the entire purchase grant of a major national collection was taken up for a year. A Government subsidy of £30,000 only was produced for that purpose, and the total loss of that transaction was a break in the tradition of the Dulwich Gallery. I hope that this will lead my hon. Friend to make long-term plans concerning the future of Dulwich and that he can give us further news beyond the earlier Adjournment debate on that matter. There are many other public or semi-private galleries, like the Coram Foundation or Kenwood, which could possibly some day be in the same circumstances.
It is no use having the elaborate safeguards which exist under the Waverley criteria and the Waverley procedure with regard to the control of export of works of art if no teeth can be brought in to give effect to them.
I hope also that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend will be able to give the House assurance concerning the position and powers of trustees, a matter which has given great concern to those involved in this matter during the last few months, and that encouragement will be given to prospective donors to feel that here is an opportunity for them to present works to the nation in circumstances in which their wishes with regard to these will be permanently complied with.

443
This is not the moment to consider the whole question of regional museums, but I ask my hon. Friend to stress to his right hon. Friend that when the time comes to consider the report which is now being prepared by a distinguished committee in this matter, one aspect that simply cannot be put back too long is the matter of the Victoria and Albert grant for helping purchases by provincial museums, because clearly a figure of £150,000 will not now assist much effective purchase by local museums. I ask my hon. Friend to stress to his right hon. Friend the urgency of having a body—I respectfully suggest the Area Museums Service as being suitable, in comparison with the University Grants Committee—to act as a source through which to channel capital works.
One other pressing major matter with regard to the position of museums and galleries is the vitally urgent position concerning staffing. There is a real risk, both on the conservation side and on the curator side, that if the present situation continues we shall lose many of the better people who are working in our museums, particularly our provincial museums, because of both the situation which arises with regard to their remuneration and the wide differences which exist between the civil servant position of the staffs of the national collections and the local government position of most provincial curators.
It is most unfortunate that there is not ease of transfer between these two sides of the profession. It is doubly unfortunate in the circumstances that the privileges which are so important for people who do this work and which exist in the national museums regarding adequate sabbatical leave, and with regard to at least one day a week for cataloguing and scholarship purposes, are not available in the case of most regional museums.
In the long run, how we shall be judged on the matter depends above all, I believe, not just on the way in which we can present the existing collections to the public but on the balance that can be struck between that and the equally important matter of safeguarding the remainder of the nation's treasures for succeeding generations.
444
This is the Government which will go down in history as having taken great steps forward in many fields of education and welfare; in help to the mentally handicapped and the disabled; in producing for those who need it most assistance in making their lives more acceptable. I hope at the same time that a Government which are doing so much and have such a wide basis of talent on this subject will not go down to future generations as the Government which have lost some of the things that they would have wished most to see kept in this country. I hope, above all, that they will not go down to history as the Government which let the Titian go and so put us on the same level as the Government which lost the collection of Charles the First.
4.7 a.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) has raised this subject. He has been frustrated on a number of occasions owing to the vagaries of our procedure, and I feel a little guilty myself because in another debate I took some time—nearly as much time as he has now taken—and other hon. Members who might have spoken did not get into that debate. I should like to support one or two things that he has said, and perhaps explore one or two other aspects which would come under this particular part of the Estimates.
We must recognise that particularly in this field of the arts passions run high, and I know that my hon. Friend feels passionately about many of the things of which he has spoken. We must also recognise that there are those who will never be shaken in their view that the members of the Conservative Party are a pack of hard-fisted philistines, insensitive to the arts. Whatever the Government do, they will not be shifted in that view. The fact is quite the opposite. My noble Friend will take his place in history as the Minister who first put the arts on a firm footing, in sharp contrast to the financial irresponsibility of the previous Government, whose errors were exposed recently by the all-party Select Committee.
I was very glad that my hon. Friend referred to the great national treasures distributed about the country which he

445
described as being so freely available in the great houses, palaces and other historic buildings of which we are so proud. He said "freely available", but I make it clear that most of them are available at a modest charge. Therefore, some of the fuss about museum charges is a little unrealistic.
My hon. Friend complained, and rightly, about the inadequacies of the museums and galleries whose financies we are now discussing. Museums as we now know them are, in the view of many distinguished people, quite out of date, and it is a matter of choice whether one tries to bring them up to date or looks at the problem in a different way. I put it to the House that much that is torn from its original home should be returned to the great houses and churches which have been despoiled by taxation or its effects. The treasures which are now gathered inexorably into galleries which cannot contain them might be more happily displayed in the places for which those treasures were made or the works of art created or, in some cases, the buildings which were created to house the treasures when they had been acquired. We cannot go on and on until everything is in institutions. Just as with buildings, the National Trust cannot do it all, nor can the other institutions which are the subject of these discussions. I am backed up in that contention by a learned article in the journal of the Museums Association.
Acquisitions must be looked at in the context of the vastly improved capital programme to which my hon. Friend referred. If there is not the ability to house acquisitions, many people will question the propriety of making further acquisitions, though my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to make sure that those things which the nation really should retain here are retained. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spoken about this, too. It means providing the necessary resources.
The idea of a list of key pictures or objects which should be retained at all costs has been canvassed. If such a list were to be produced, presumably by those who have the charge of the collections we are discussing, it should be kept private. It would greatly assist the Govern-
446
ment in planning the future resources which the institutions might need in order to acquire the objects, but it would be wrong to make the list public, because the Government would be at the mercy of those who would seek to drive up the prices. Conversely, if the Government made clear that those objects were never to leave the country, and were to be acquired by a gallery and not to be allowed to be sold at auction, it might have a very unfair effect on the prospects of the owners. We must reflect that the reason why many people have been selling recently is the penal taxation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will have at the back of his mind the possibility that if taxation were not so fierce we might not find ourselves having to rescue quite so many objects of importance.
The key-list policy should be fairly fluid, because what is key in one respect might not be in another. The Titian which has been referred to, The Death of Actæon, would be a key picture if we had to face the situation that all the other Titians in the country in private hands were to go and nothing could be done to stop them. Obviously, in those circumstances, The Death of Actæon should be retained at all costs, but there are other Titians in private hands on public view in this country. It is well known where they are. If we take the view that these pictures, perhaps even more important than the one that has been discussed, are likely——
Mr. Money: There can be no doubt that my hon. Friend is referring to Sutherland Titians on view in Edinburgh. Has he borne in mind the comparison between the condition of those pictures and the extremely fine condition of the former Harewood Diana and Actæon?
Mr. Cooke: I am sure that I should be out of order if I were to comment on that. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend has put the point, and I am sure it will be noted. The essence of what I am saying about the key list is not altered by what my hon. Friend said—that something could be key if one thought it was the only example available in the field in question, but if it transpired that it was not obviously the key list would have to be altered.

447
My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) the other day referred to the necessity to provide funds for the rounding off of collections. There might be a contrary view about this matter. I should like to see much more interchange and exchange between museums and galleries. Exchanges are made and they should continue, but it might be better to discontinue collecting in a particular field by a national or local institution as part of an exchange with another institution when the present result is that two people have half a collection. Each should perhaps specialise in another field and so have a more complete picture to present to those who come to see the museum or gallery. Therefore, although the key list is available, it has its limitations.
My hon. Friend deplored the prospect of works of art going abroad. So do I. But works of art come back to our shores, and we should do nothing to interfere with the freedom of the art world, which in recent years has centred on London. Some of those who seek to conserve the nation's treasures do not go far enough in considering the possible effects on our international position of some of their suggestions. There has been considerable movement in works of art in times gone by. My hon. Friend's distinguished speech began with references to some of the losses. But there have been enormous gains. Art is international, and, although we have our views about what we should like to retain here, we are unlikely to get anything major back from abroad if we are too close with what we possess.
The National Gallery has been mentioned. The suggestion has been made about mortgaging its future in order to acquire the Titian which has been discussed in this debate, The Death of Actæon. This would be a very dangerous road to go along if the Government were to allow it. How are we to know that the National Galley will not come to us in any one of the following six years and say, "We spent £600,000 in advance on the Titian, but something else has turned up and what we have in our resources is nothing like adequate."? This would be a very dangerous course, and I hope
448
that the Government will find other ways to meet the current problems.
Various tax reliefs have been suggested, and it would be out of order to pursue this matter in detail. I do not believe that the American system by which works of art are purchased by means of tax concessions and presented to galleries is an ideal solution. It can result in the most fearful junk being collected in galleries, and I have seen some of it in the United States. I cannot in this debate suggest the imposition of new taxes, but I can leave my hon. Friend with this thought. The solution lies in arousing the interest of hundreds of thousands of people in the arts and in obtaining their financial interest.
If in the next Budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer allowed the top £25 of a person's income to be dedicated to charitable purposes before tax was levied on the remainder, that would not only help the arts but would help sport, social services, education and the quality of life in general. It would revive the voluntary spirit. I hope this suggestion will not fall on deaf ears. This is where all of us together can achieve what we seek to do. It is a simple and intelligible way of going about the problem. It would involve the widest possible number of people and would not be just the preserve of the rich.
We must seek to avoid putting the arts in a privileged position, because when privilege is granted it can be taken away in times of stress or disrepute. There might be a reaction if any special concessions were granted to the arts through the years. The arts must stand or fall against competition from all the other things of interest to be found in this country.
I hope that, even if we do not agree on points of detail, we shall collaborate in many other ways. Those who wish to do lasting good for the arts should sink their prejudices, whether political, personal or purely pedantic. I notice little interest in this matter on the Opposition benches, which are empty, but some personal comments have come from that side of the House about my noble Friend the Paymaster-General. I hope that all who are interested in the future of the arts will pull their weight behind the noble Lord, because the cause of art needs more friends. Those who already

449
dedicate themselves to the cause will do a greater service if they speak with an intelligible and more united voice.
4.22 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Money) for raising this subject and will agree that this has been a valuable debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) had a fair point to make when he drew attention to the empty Opposition benches. Since my two hon. Friends have sat up until this hour to take part in this debate, I am surprised that the Opposition Front Bench is not manned, as it normally would have been for an important matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich began with an erudite and apposite reference to Talleyrand and assumed that none of us needed a translation. It happens that I have a particular interest in Talleyrand because I was born in the house in which he spent his first exile in this country. It is a curious reflection that, so far as I know, so great a man has no known place of burial in Paris. I put that point to my right hon. Friend for reflection at a later stage.
The first theme in my hon. Friend's speech was a specific plan in regard to the Titian which is in our minds at the moment. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer which he will think satisfactory. The reason is a perfectly proper one. The Reviewing Committee has not yet met. It would be improper—indeed, discourteous—for the Government to give a view before the committee had met and tendered advice. I notice that the Trustees of the National Gallery have expressed the hope that there will be an appropriate period of time for everyone to consider the advice which is tendered.
A number of related matters will have to be gone into carefully. There is, for example, the pertinent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West concerning the position of other works in this country by that great artist. In that connection, I am afraid that I cannot accept the more than implied criticism of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich of the state of the Sutherland Titians at Edinburgh. On a private occa-
450
sion my hon. Friend made the same point to me. So great was my concern that I caused inquiries to be made. I understand that in former years there were grounds for criticising the state of and the method of display of those works. Whatever may have been the case in the past, however, there is no room for criticism on those grounds now—either about their present habitat or about their state.
That is one matter which would have to be considered carefully. Another is the wisdom or otherwise of what is loosely called "the Getty offer". I am aware of the trustees' comments on that. These are the sorts of matters which would have to be considered.
I do not altogether accept my hon. Friend's fairly light reference to the cost involved as "containable". By anyone's standards, it is a very large sum. The problem is well illustrated when one considers the conflicting demands. My hon. Friend himself was pressing certain additional expenditures upon me. He said that the present disproportionate grants to the regional museums and to the national institutions are not supportable, and he hopes that more will come from the committee which my noble Friend has appointed. But my hon. Friend is pressing for increased expenditures, and this illustrates the sort of problem confronting the Government when we have to consider the matter of resources.
Mr. Money: I am sorry that my hon. Friend thought any reference that I made to the price of the Titian being "containable" was meant to be light. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider the figures that I put to him as the basis of a practicable scheme for costing this operation, should it become feasible.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I have my reservations, and they are largely the reservations which were brought out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. It is, after all, within the recollection of the House that a representative of the gallery was questioned in a radio interview very recently. He was asked the same pertinent question that my hon. Friend asked; namely, what would happen if, in the six-year mortgage period, another great work came on the market? The reply, as nearly as I can recall it—I hope that I do it no injustice—was, "In that case, we shall clearly have to come to the Government for more." It

451
was an honest and fair answer. Therefore, I am not sure whether juggling with figures in this way is the most direct and appropriate way of going about a problem of this kind.
I assure my hon. Friend that when we have the advice of the Reviewing Committee—I realise that its distinguished chairman has already expressed a personal view—the most careful consideration will be given to it.
That was the first theme of my hon. Friend's speech which related particularly to this great picture. No one questions that it is a great picture.
The second wider theme was that something more by way of a policy to cover this matter was necessary. My hon. Friend made a courteous reference to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He made the same quotation as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) on 22nd July, but significantly left out the last sentence. It may be that he has not got the last sentence. In order to keep the record straight, I must put it in. The Prime Minister was talking about our having benefited
"very much in the past with treasures from other lands. It seems a narrow view that they should never leave our shores."
My hon. Friend accurately quoted the Prime Minister when he said:
"it behoves the Government to look to the future to see what we want to keep in our own land".
He was there referring to great works which had particular relevance to our history, and so on. But in the same sequence of that speech the Prime Minister added:
"The Government, and the taxpayers represented by the Government, cannot afford to keep everything. It becomes a question of priorities."
This is the key to the matter. It is a question of priorities. I felt that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock in his Adjournment debate on 22nd July had slightly begged the question. He said, at column 1835, that there were three things which he wanted the Government to do:
"Third and most important, they must see how means can be found to meet the need without creating enormous or unreasonable demands on the public purse."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1971; Vol. 821, c. 1835.]
Mr. Money: I was present when the Prime Minister made his speech at Grosvenor House. I accept the accuracy of the quotation which my hon. Friend has made and the basis on which my right hon. Friend was speaking. My point in this regard is that, concerning priorities, there are some works which are so important that every effort must be made to save them.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must intervene. It seems strange to me how selfish hon. Members get in the middle of the night. The last three back-bench speeches before I came back to the Chair have taken, respectively, 49, 37 and 32 minutes, the hon. Member's own speech. The hon. Member has also intervened three times since I have been back. Many hon. Members have been waiting a long time to raise other topics.
Mr. van Straubenzee: I will do my best to be short, in view of what you have understandably said, Mr. Speaker.
I repeat that this is a matter of priorities. Frankly, there is a genuine, and honest difference of view about priority relating to any one picture.
I remind my hon. Friend that the combined effect of the forecast of public expenditure in Command 4578—he will know that the relevant section on the Arts is to be found on page 35—and the policy outlined in Command 4676, "Future Policy for Museums and Galleries", indicates a growth of 10 per cent. anually when allowances has been made for receipts for entrance charges for museums and galleries. Therefore, I am able to show that they are receiving public funds at an unprecendented rate. I am glad that it should be so. My hon. Friend made a courteous reference to this. The growth rate of 10 per cent. annually is much higher than is possible for any major sector of public expenditure. I am entitled to defend the Government's record by reference to the figures, which can easily be extracted from the two documents to which I have referred. It becomes a matter of priority.
The cellars at the National Gallery have been referred to. I accept that all the pictures can be displayed. I doubt that the trustees would say that they were displayed as well as they would wish

453
them to be displayed. Indeed, there was the very reasonable reference to the additional building. In that respect they are extraordinarly fortunate, much more fortunate than most of the other museums and galleries with which we are concerned.
The background to that statement is that the number of visitors in 1970 was 10 per cent. above the 1969 figure. This is the sort of growth rate with which we are dealing. This is the justification for saying that one must have in mind when talking about these figures the uses to which such expenditure could otherwise be directed. This is not a philistine point of view.
There are at least three factors which will increase this pressure. There is, first, the immense growth of secondary education and all that that has meant and will increasingly mean with a greater section of younger people being interested in museums and galleries. There is, second, the greater growth of tourism. There is, third, the increasing use of leisure and the ability to enjoy leisure with increasing living standards.
I do not think that anybody has understood properly, though my noble Friend has—not for the first time—blazed a trail here, the pressures which will be placed upon the museums and galleries, particularly if increasingly we use them to everybody's greater benefit.
I end by a reference to what was implied in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and was was specifically referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. It is suggested that there should be something in the way of a list of the most important treasures which in no circumstances should be permitted to leave the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock developed this theme with great skill in the short time available to him in his Adjournment debate.
In this respect I accept entirely the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West. If there were to be such a list, it would be essential that it remained an absolutely private one. There are a number of reasons for this, some of which my hon. Friend gave very persuasively. First, the very existence of such a list, publicly known, would at once expose a number of owners who might
454
not otherwise be in the least disposed to sell their treasures to considerable pressure from those in whose interests it lay to achieve the sales. I am not being critical of these people but we all know the silver-tongued gentlemen who would descend upon the owners. This would be particularly true in the case of pictures which were not in the most obvious top-bracket list of those we were anxious to retain. It might turn out to be a positive cue to exploitation.
It could easily be that such a list, made public, would produce such a mammoth demand for public funds that no Government, however well-intentioned towards the arts, could, at least in public, do anything but reject such a commitment when resources are scarce. This could actually be self-defeating.
I can now tell my hon. Friend what I implied only a few days ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock. My noble Friend Viscount Eccles is in consultation with the galleries to see whether such a list could be compiled and what it would imply in terms of financial commitment to the nation. I am not in a position to go further because consultation is at this moment taking place. But I think it unlikely that my noble Friend would ever want to make the result of these consultations public for the reasons I have stated.
I hope that this, taken in conjunction with the encouraging figures that I was able to give at the beginning of the debate, may make my hon. Friend feel that he does not support a philistine Government, though he did not say they were. But they must be deeply concerned with priorities, each of which must argue a case effectively against other claims for competing expenditure.

RURAL TRANSPORT (LEICESTERSHIRE)
4.44 a.m.
Mr. John Farr: I felt I had to seize this opportunity of raising the subject of rural transport in Leicestershire because of a recent heading in one of the local newspapers to the effect that the Midland Red Bus Co., which has a virtual monopoly in the county, is to axe another eight rural services at the end of this month.

455
This decision represents all the anxieties and worries we have had in the county for many years on this subject. I want to express the dissatisfaction of many people in the county with public transport, outline one or two of the causes of this dissatisfaction, and have the temerity to suggest where the solution lies.
Public rural transport in Leicestershire has been doing a vanishing act in the last 10 to 15 years. Ten years ago we had 28 railway stations where real live trains stopped frequently. Today we have two in operation in the constituency. The only alternative, bus transport, is operated mainly by the National Bus Company-owned Midland Red. Its activity has steadily diminished and its prices have steadily increased over the years. One of the results was shown in a recent survey by the county council—no fewer than 50 communities, up to a size of 1,000 souls, had no public transport.
One tends to accept this situation as inevitable. People seem to think that as we get more and more affluent—in or out of the Common Market—and get more motor cars, so the need for rural transport decreases. They tend to forget the hardship of sections of the community who are completely cut off from public transport. I could give many examples, but I will confine myself to describing the general tenor of the hardship.
Particularly numerous are the expressions of concern to me by pensioners who cannot get their pensions. Some of these small villages have no post office and so they might have to go to the next village or even further—yet there is no public transport. They have to become supplicants or scroungers of lifts from friends, or they have to arrange for someone else to collect their pensions. Large numbers of them cannot drive or afford to buy a car. This section of the community rely particularly on public transport.
Another hard hit section are the very young and housewives with young families in isolated communities. If the husband takes the car to work, the wife has to shop from a mobile grocery. That is an inadequate way to live and causes a great deal of inconvenience. People cannot afford to take a taxi to shop, pick up pensions or visit doctors, who are increasingly concentrated in towns or very populous areas.
456
Over the last few years, I have noticed the effect which this form of isolation is having on village life. The character is changing, whether we like it or not. The village now is tending gradually to become the place where only people with motor cars can live in comfort, acting as a sort of commuter centre to the neighbouring towns, and people without motor cars are tending to be forced away. Because of their isolation, and for other causes which curtail village life and activities, such as the closing of village schools, they have to abandon their village and go, perhaps, to live near relatives in the town.
In the several debates on rural transport which we have had over the years, there has been a general expression of view from both sides, including the Front Benches, that a good public rural transport system is essential to the countryside. Yet, despite recognition by both parties of the need to provide a decent public rural transport system, I can only record that during the same time the situation has deteriorated, with public transport either not being available at all or being beyond the purse of people of fragile means who would wish to use it.
I come now to a few suggestions of help to remedy the situation. The Government have an interest in all the methods which I shall propose, though some lie more directly within the power of authorities other than the Government. In the forefront of my mind in this connection at present is the Post Office. I pay tribute to the helpful attitude of the managing director of the Post Office towards the possibility of providing a postal bus service in Leicestershire and elsewhere in the country. Such a service operates in certain parts of the United Kingdom already.
The Post Office has been most helpful in looking carefully into suggestions which we have put to it from Leicestershire, and we have a letter from the Post Office now saying that it will consider any recommendations which the County of Leicester might make for the provision of postal buses on specific routes. These detailed recommendations have not yet gone from the county, but they will go, and I am sure that they will receive sympathetic consideration by the Post Office.
The postal bus is a familiar part of the scene in the countryside in parts of

457
the Continent, and, as I say, it is operating in several places in the United Kingdom. Its extended use should be carefully considered, for it could offer alleviation of the problem, if not a complete solution, where the interests of the Post Office and of the villagers who would wish to use it can be brought to coincide.
Next, I suggest that more effective use should be made of the powers under the Transport Act, 1968, which authorised local authorities to make a grant to local bus companies to subsidise a service or services. It provided that any subsidy made by a local authority to an uneconomic route may be half repaid by the Government through grants. In this respect I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, whom I am glad to see here at this early hour, for the helpful way in which he has dealt with the correspondence I have had with him in connection with the operation of the Act. This particular Section is a useful one because it places the responsibility for providing financial assistance to local bus companies upon those to whom it belongs, namely, the local authority which knows the background to the case.
Many people are still under the misapprehension that a 50 per cent. grant is all they will receive. I would particularly like to thank my hon. Friend for his letter of 21st July. I can condense it by saying that the purpose of the letter, which I regard as most valuable, was to point out to me, and perhaps others, that some local authorities, by virtue of the rate support grant which they attract from central government, instead of having their support of an economic bus service subsidised to the extent of 50 per cent., would have such subsidy to the extent of over 60 per cent. As far as I understand it, it could be well over two-thirds.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths)indicated assent.
Mr. Fair: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's confirmation of this important point. If the local authorities were more aware of that we might have a better response from them in implementing this part of the Act. How can the Government help directly? I will not raise matters of taxation, which would be out
458
of order, but there is one anomaly which I could not let pass and that is the extraordinary situation whereby a bus undertaking owned and operated by a local authority is corporation tax free and yet a bus undertaking operating in any other way, owned by say, the Midland Red, by the National Bus Company or by a private company, attracts and must pay the tax.
I am in order in calling attention to this anomaly. What it means in my constituency is that hundreds of thousands of people living in Leicester, are served by a bus company owned by the city which pays no corporation tax. Yet my constituents in the adjoining county are served by the National Bus Company, the Midland Red, which has to pay corporation tax to the extent of thousands of pounds annually. It means that every one of my constituents who travels by Midland Red in Leicestershire is directly paying a proportion of the very large sum which Midland Red has to pay in corporation tax and yet the city brethren, just over the border in Leicester, escape corporation tax altogether and are carried at a cheaper rate.
This is an extraordinary anomaly. One would be safe in asuming that it is easier and more efficient to convey people within a city boundary, where routes are shorter and population is denser, than in the country, where routes are longer and population more sparse, and that therefore financial assistance in the way of some form of tax relief was needed for the country services. Yet the emphasis is the other way round. I tabled a new Clause to the Finance Bill which was not selected, so I hope that if my hon. Friend grasps the purport of my argument he will have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this anomaly.
Another direct action by the Government which could assist us in arresting the decline of public transport in rural areas is in connection with a review of the powers of the traffic commissioners. I have been in correspondence with my hon. Friend also on this matter, when I drew his attention to the case of Thistle Coaches and its application to run a new bus service from Lutterworth to Bar-well. The commissioners, strange to relate, granted the company's request despite opposition by the Midland Red, which, although it did not run a similar

459
route, felt it its duty to oppose the application. However, the commissioners hedged their consent with almost impossible conditions relating to the picking up and setting down of passengers, and after a week or so of running the service Thistle Coaches had to abandon it because the conditions were so difficult to comply with.
In the past 10 years, the countryside has been stripped of many forms of rural transport; yet it is still more difficult for an independent bus operator to break a monopoly company's stranglehold than it is for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. In the Thistle case, the extraordinary thing is that the Midland Red felt that it must oppose the application even though it was not running a comparable route. The time has come for the activities of the traffic commissioners to be investigated.
My hon. Friend wrote to me on 21st June in reply to representations I had made to him about what I might call the "dead hand" of the traffic commissioners. He said that he was considering reducing unnecessary controls, that investigations had taken place and that in due course a decision on the lifting of controls on private bus operators would be announced. We in Leicestershire and many other rural areas are looking forward to an early and encouraging announcement from the Department.
I shall not read out a host of letters tonight—this is not the time for that—but I can honestly say that I have had dozens of letters from local councillors in my constituency all asking for the small man, the mini bus operator, the small private coach operator, to be allowed to provide a service in competition with the nationalised giants. I can speak with some authority only about the Midland Red Company, which is a wholy-owned subsidiary of the National Bus Company. It has a dog-in-the-manger attitude to any application by a private bus company for routes in Leicestershire, but that attitude is out of date and not in the public interest. With private enterprise allowed to renew its interest in the provision of fare-paying services on rural routes, the situation could be transformed.
I hope my hon. Friend appreciates that the independents are very anxious to
460
help. The small operators and small coach owners coming from the locality are generally far more efficient. It always disappoints me to see on tiny country roads in Leicestershire a vast 48-seater coach, owned by the National Bus Company, trundling along and practically empty. Why not allow the mini coach operator to do the job in his own area using his own people? He knows the roads and he does not block them to every passer by, and he knows the times when local people want to travel.
I should like to thank my hon. Friend for listening to my few comments. One final aspect of interest is the use of the, railways which have been closed down, and in Leicestershire we have a number. In several instances the lines have been removed and we are left with a strip running for miles through the countryside. Sometimes it is sold off to farmers or local authorities for development. One suggestion for dealing with part of the old Great Central line between Lutterworth and Leicester is that it should be turned into a car-testing track, and there have been other suggestions.
There is a good suggestion for another railway line which has been completely closed for about ten years. This is between Rugby, Peterborough and Market Harborough. This would make a very pleasant walk for many people from the town who would like to walk out into the country and enjoy everything that the countryside can give.
The writer of a letter in which that suggestion was made said that people should be able to walk along these routes without interfering with agriculture and he added that townspeople would like the opportunity of using disused railway lines for the purpose. He asked me to put the matter to my hon. Friend and the local authority concerned, because he felt that it would be a useful and healthy walk for townspeople without interfering with detailed agricultural activities and without being run over by motor cars on our speedy motorways. At the same time as being rural walks for townspeople, they would be useful regions for preserving flora and areas where wild life could continue to exist to some extent. He hoped that we should be able to make some arrangement for these lines to pass on the heritage for future generations. This is a good idea. It is probably

461
not strictly within the ambit of my original subject, but I thought that while pleading for Leicestershire rural transport, I would add a plea for the future use of derelict railway lines with which my constituency is now littered.
5.10 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I am happy that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) has been able to raise this important subject on a day and in a week when the Government are able to announce further important steps towards helping rural people who do not own motor cars in their public transport problems. My hon. Friend has fairly and effectively painted a picture of the difficulties faced by some of his constituents, especially those in small villages, as a result largely of the deterioration—he described it as the vanishing—of rural bus services. My right hon. Friend and I am sympathetic not only to the problems that my hon. Friend has outlined but also to many of the solutions which he has proposed.
But we are not only sympathetic. We are doing something about it, and to a great extent on the lines proposed by my hon. Friend. For one thing, as my hon. Friend knows, the Government provide a fuel grant for the bus industry and help on the capital side for the purchase of new buses, too. Where appropriate we also willingly pay not only half the cost of rural bus grants under Section 34 of the 1968 Act, but in addition, we pay rate support in respect of a local authority's contribution.
I remind my hon. Friend—he might well pass this on to some of his constituents—that grants need not be restricted to revenue support. They can equally be used for capital purposes, such as the purchase of a new bus. Moreover, they are not confined to "regular" bus services. They can extend to any service, regular or irregular, by bus, mini-bus or hired car, which is, in the opinion of the local authority, for the benefit of people living in the rural areas and which is covered by a road service licence. These grants are very flexible and I assure my hon. Friend that when the applications come to my Department, they are dealt with at once. There is no extensive red tape in this matter.
462
Beyond that, we have recently made available to the National Bus Company very substantial loans, running to many millions, to meet some of its deficits. I recently had the satisfaction of asking the House to amend the drivers' hours regulations, and I am sure that this has been a help to rural bus services also.
Today, however—as it is now 5.15 a.m., perhaps I should say yesterday—we have taken another quite important step with the publication of the pilot studies on rural transport in two counties, Devon and West Suffolk. Without giving away any secrets, I can tell my hon. Friend that all being well, later this week my right hon. Friend hopes to make known further major proposals based in part on those studies, which are published today, and on the Government's general consideration of how best to help the rural bus to stay in business.
I say "stay in business" because the bus industry, and not only in rural areas, is literally fighting for its life. The transport climate is changing and a great deal of the business of the bus is being taken away by the more flexible and convenient motor car. The whole bus industry is buffeted by inflation and the result in many areas, especially rural districts, of which my hon. Friend has spoken, is that bus companies find it increasingly difficult to keep their conventional buses on our rural roads. Country people, as he rightly said, are being hard hit.
It is a measure of the decline in the bus industry that in the early 'fifties its passengers made about 16,000 million journeys each year; today they make no more than 10,000 million journeys, and that is a decline of just over two-fifths. Over the same period there has been a fivefold increase in the number of private cars. The car's competition is accelerating, so that while car ownership has more than doubled since 1960, passenger demand on the buses has gone down to close to one-third. So the bus industry, I am afraid, is operating in quite different and very much more difficult conditions than 10 or even five years ago. It is having to drive up a hill which is getting steeper in front of it all the time.

463
The main factors operating against the bus can be set out quite simply. The first is that because the number of bus passengers is declining, bus services have had to be scaled down or, in some cases, withdrawn. As a result, the overhead costs are spread over a much smaller number of journeys, so that for those who still travel on the buses fares have gone up steeply.
The second factor is rising costs, and I remind my hon. Friend that of the costs of bus operation more than two-thirds is wages. This makes the bus industry particularly vulnerable to the ravages of wage inflation. The National Bus Company, for example, had to face wage increases of 5 per cent. in September, 1969; 9 per cent. in March, 1970, and a further 10 per cent. this year. The result inevitably is still higher fares, and these higher fares in turn mean still more passenger loss.
The third problem is operational difficulties. More cars on the road mean more traffic congestion, and the buses, in particular, suffer from traffic delays. So bus services become more irregular and less reliable for their customers, and these difficulties are aggravated by staff shortages—shortages which were made worse by the drivers hours Regulations introduced by the previous Government, though assisted, I believe, by the amendments we made so recently.
All these various factors—operational difficulties, competition from the motor car and pressures of wage inflation—interact on each other, and Midland Red, which runs the bulk of rural services in my hon. Friend's constituency and throughout Leicestershire, illustrates the problem. Its revenues fell by £502,000 in 1970, while its expenditure rose by £738,000. So an estimated operating surplus of about £570,000 for 1970 became an actual operating loss of £669,000. No company, private or public, can possibly go on at that rate, so Midland Red, like other bus companies elsewhere, has not only raised its fares but has cut its services.
I perfectly understand that this produces both hardship and, I think, anger, among bus passengers, but it is simply no good ignoring the situation of the bus operator. We cannot have five times
464
more cars and still keep the same number of buses.
It was against this background that we recognised the hardship of the particular groups which my hon. Friend has identified in rural areas. I think here particularly of the isolated rural elderly, often cut off, as my hon. Friend rightly says. I think, too, of the young who do not have motor cars themselves, and who are often cut off from entertainment or social activities in the evenings. And I think of the housewife, including the wife in the family where the husband may use the car to go to work but who is not able herself to move by public transport during the balance of the day.
It is because the Government were genuinely concerned about the situation of these particular categories of people—and, indeed, country folk generally—that we set up last year the two pilot studies in West Suffolk and Devon, so that we could find out what the position really was for those who do not have private cars, and are dependent for mobility on some form of public transport. The studies have been published, and copies are now available in the Vote Office. Despite the geographical differences between West Suffolk and Devon, there is a remarkable similarity in their conclusions. I quote just one short paragraph from the West Suffolk Report, which says that the elderly:
". . need to get to a Post Office regularly to draw their pension and have reasonable regular access to shops for their weekly needs. They need to be able to visit a doctor when necessary and to get to a chemist to have prescriptions made up. It is probably amongst elderly people too that difficulties of visiting a partner or relative in hospital are most prevalent …"
My hon. Friend will agree that those who have reached those conclusions are genuinely aware of the human need that is created.
The studies bring out four or five main points. First, there is still a rôle for the bus in rural areas, though it is more limited than in the past. Second, unprofitable bus services will need to be supported by local authorities under the rural bus grant scheme. Third, where demand is too small to justify the conventional bus, the large bus trundling empty around the lanes, it should be possible to devise ways and means of putting the available motor cars to better use to

465
meet the individual fragmented and often irregular needs of people without cars. Fourth, there is scope for the greater use of mini-buses, whether on regular runs or to meet a specific requirement. The studies also bring out that postal bus services might well be explored locally where circumstances are favourable, though the surveys do not support the notion that there is unlimited scope for them. I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about the co-operation of the postmaster in Leicestershire. I shall be very interested to' hear the conclusions his county council reaches on the matter. Though there is some scope for postal buses, there may not be so much as my hon. Friend suggested.
Above all, the surveys bring out the vital rôle local authorities have to play in the matter. The main decisions on rural bus grant are theirs, and they have a powerful leverage through their control of such ancillary transport activities as school buses and other welfare bus services. There is a need to take a grip on the total transport system and try to organise these things better to suit the local needs. What strikes me about the surveys is that there is in total more transport than ever before in the rural areas, but most of it is motor cars, and the question is how to make better use of that transport.
The Steering Groups make a number of suggestions, and I hope that my hon. Friend will consider them carefully. I am sure that he will find them interesting. They make some useful suggestions which I hope local authorities will take up. For example, can we organise and regularise the giving of lifts in cars? Can the idea of a social car service which has been developed in Lincolnshire be used elsewhere? Can local people—I think here particularly of the voluntary organisations—devise some form of clearing house for providing information both to those willing to give lifts and those seeking to obtain them? Cannot the idea of tokens, to be provided, for example, to the elderly, be developed at a local level?
None of this is to say that the rural bus is finished. On the contrary, the surveys make it clear that there is still an important rôle for the bus, but its use increasingly will depend on local authority assistance through the rural bus
466
grant. The local authorities are by far the best placed to take an overall look at the transport facilities available because of their interest in school and welfare services, and so on, as well as in the Section 34 grant. But the crucial point which is brought out so clearly by the surveys is that the time has come when we must reduce the restrictions on the availability of transport which local authorities and others in future may choose to support, and that is why the Government have been reviewing the licensing system which originated at a time of rapid expansion in the bus industry and has contributed largely to the route system as we know it but which is no longer as relevant as it was to the new circumstances of today.
Therefore, we have concluded that in the present position of the bus industry there is no longer a clear case for such rigid controls as have existed in the rural areas. The emphasis must now be placed on much more informal arrangements involving a multiplicity of small operators perhaps and a great deal more private enterprise. My right hon. Friend will therefore be announcing shortly further important proposals for revising the licensing system and these will be particularly aimed at helping the rural areas. If I may appropriate my hon. Friend's phrase, we shall be seeking to remove what he described as the dead hand. I ask him to await my right hon. Friend's statement rather than ask me to comment on the problem of Thistle Coaches in respect of which an appeal has been made to the Secretary of State.
I wish to say a few words about the problems in Leicestershire which my hon. Friend mentioned. He will know that the Leicestershire authorities have set up a rural bus committee, coordinated by the county council. The Midland Red Company has co-operated with this committee in reviewing those services which are losing money to see whether they can be modified so as to reduce or even to eliminate the need for grant. I understand that the list of routes requiring assistance has been reduced to eight—my hon. Friend referred to eight proposed to be closed—and of these the local authority has decided not to support five. I fear it is probable that those five will be withdrawn.

467
However, the remaining three will receive temporary grant while the long term needs are investigated. It may well be that against the background of today's and further announcements by the Government the county council will wish to look very carefully at those remaining routes—the Leicester-Hungarton, Leicester-Hallaton-Market Harborough and Leicester-Medbourne routes. Midland Red has indicated to the county council that generally it will not oppose small operator's who wish to take over routes which it has abandoned, but obviously each case has to be considered independently.
I understand that the Leicester County Council is appointing a rural transport co-ordinating officer—and I welcome its decision—whose job it will be to look into the long-term travel needs of the county. This is the sort of development which the Government hope to see, and I believe that it will assist in dealing with the problem my hon. Friend has mentioned.
Mr. Farr: Would my hon. Friend, tomorrow or the next day, look at my remarks about corporation tax, which I think were interesting?
Mr. Griffiths: I had not forgotten them and I will look at them. But I think that my hon. Friend will find that the proposals which my right hon. Friend has in mind, although they do not cover that point, will be helpful in general.
My hon. Friend's suggestion about the disused railway lines is very close to my heart. It is open to local authorities to approach British Railways about its disposal policy and to get a first option on land and to give the appropriate planning permission for the kinds of use which my hon. Friend has in mind. The Countryside Commission and most certainly the new Sports Council will be anxious to see these potential linear parks or bridleways or areas of ecological value brought into the maximum possible use.
My hon. Friend has done his constituents, Leicestershire in general and the whole cause of rural transport a great service in raising this matter so eloquently.

MICROCIRCUIT INDUSTRY
5.30 a.m.
Mr. Brian Harrison: Last week The Times published an article which began:
"What is it that sold for £3 in 1967, sells for 3p today and caused Sir Arnold Weinstock to decide to close down two factories earlier this month? Answer: a microcircuit."
I wish to draw the attention of the House to the problem that is facing this industry and to persuade the Government to act to ensure that the factories and the expertise associated with microcircuit production is not lost to Britain.
This industry which has developed the manufacture of microcircuits here in the United Kingdom is not an old-fashioned industry asking to be propped up because it has traditional methods and has not modernised itself. It is an up-to-the-moment business and probably is only just beginning its effective and important life.
The factory which I know, which is in my constituency at Witham, is run by G.E.C. Semiconductors Limited and is one of the most modern, custom-built factories I have ever seen. Most of the assembly work is carried out either automatically or under a microscope in conditions of complete sterility and pure air. When one considers that a microcircuit is so small that a fully processed silicon wafer, the size of a new 10p piece, could contain several hundred integrated circuits of the E.C.G/S.L. type used in high speed computers, one gets some idea of the importance of working where no speck of dust falls. It seems to me that this is the type of industry, with high technology and easy transportation, that we require to develop in the United Kingdom.
This factory, built at a cost of between £2½ and £3 million, with investment grants to the tune of about £200,000, was opened only in 1968. It is now threatened with closure. The factory was planned and developed to supply the demands of the G.E.C. company, but when the expansion in the market seemed to be very large, it was decided that G.E.C. Semiconductors Limited should develop not only for the local markets but on an international scale. Contracts were tendered for—and successfully—from organisations in the

469
United States, Canada, Germany, Italy and a wide variety of companies in the United Kingdom.
It was not until the second half of 1970, when, one assumes, there was a recession in the American aerospace and defence orientated industries, that the financial state of the company suffered along with all others. The major reason for this was the flooding of the market with cheap products which could not be economically produced in the United Kingdom, or in fact economically produced anywhere else.
What happened can be illustrated by tracing the history of a typical standard microcircuit known as a "quad gate". It was introduced by Texas Instruments in the mid-1960s. This circuit carries the equivalent of three transistors, nine diodes and 13 resistors and is connected to the outside world via 14 leads. It is a tiny thing, smaller than the full-stop in typescript. In 1967 the price of this circuit was £3. But by 1968–69 the price had come down to about 15 shillings, mainly through improved production technology. In August 1969 the price was still about 15 shillings. But by December it had dropped to 5s. 6d. as output zoomed far ahead of demand and companies slashed prices to keep their stocks moving.
Throughout 1970, the price of the quad gate continued to fall. At the end of the year, it stood at a shilling in Britain and, incredibly, at 7½d. in the United States. I say "incredibly", because British industry estimates that the raw materials cost not less than 8d.
The importance of a semiconductor industry in the United Kingdom is twofold. Semiconductors and micro-electronics are the bricks on which computers and other highly sophisticated electric and electronic instruments are made. If we do not have a micro-electronic industry in the United Kingdom we shall be dependent entirely on designs made by other countries. Furthermore, our own design teams will have to modify their ideas to fit in with the components which they can get from the supplying countries. I am sure that hon. Members will realise that this would be a most undesirable situation for a manufacturing country like the United Kingdom.
470
What is more, at any time the components could be altered, and those that had been manufactured and used in a British piece of equipment could go out of production. This would mean that spare parts were not available, and that a competitor using slightly modified equipment, no doubt supplied by the same country as that which was building the circuits, could take over our markets. It could result also in only sub-systems being sold, and not the small components, thus doing away with the possibility of manufacturing an earlier stage here in the United Kingdom.
One action that it was thought possible for the Department of Trade and Industry to take was to apply the antidumping and countervailing legislation which we have already on the Statute Book. However, it is just possible that this is a non-starter, since the components may be being sold at the same price in the United States or in the home markets of other foreign producers, despite the fact that they are being sold below the cost of production, in which case we should not be able to apply this legislation. But I cannot believe that it is beyond the wit of the Department of Trade and Industry to find some way in which support can be given to this lynch-pin industry over what I believe to be a transitory period.
We must face the fact that we are not facing fair competition here. The price has been brought down because overseas suppliers in Europe and North America have been able to use cheap labour in places like Taiwan, Korea and Singapore and bring small components over here.
However, this is not the whole story. Some people are of the opinion that even the raw materials here are more expensive than the present piece of equipment which we get. Such sale prices can be designed only for one purpose, and it is to put our industry into such a financial state that it collapses, with the result that, at a later date, the people manufacturing these components can move in and hold us to ransom for whatever price they require. If our manufacturers go out of business, that is exactly what will happen.
In addition, if that happened and we became wholly dependent on overseas suppliers, they could dictate to us the

471
markets in which we could operate. For instance, some United States legislation could prevent us from supplying computers and other equipment to markets behind the Iron Curtain.
Another factor which I should like my hon. Friend to consider is that, over the last few years, G.E.C. has succeeded in getting together in various parts of the country teams of highly skilled and integrated people living round factories such as the one at Witham, in my constituency. Such teams and such highly skilled labour are not easy to come by. But they are there, and established, and able to contribute considerably to the wellbeing of our industrial society. It would be a national tragedy were we to lose these groups of people and were they to move out of this industry, as well as being personal tragedies for many of them.
I hope that my hon. Friend will look at this particular problem to see whether there is some way that such an important and vital industry to the future of this country can be preserved and developed.
5.41 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Price): My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison) has raised a very important subject this morning. Although he gave notice that he would raise the subject of "support programme for the microcircuit industry", his main argument, as I expected, has been directed towards integrated circuits, because this is where the major problem lies. The House will, therefore, forgive me if at this hour I concentrate on integrated circuits. In any case, as my hon. Friend will realise, integrated circuits are the major part of the microcircuit industry, the other being the micro-assemblies.
This subject of integrated circuits is clearly important. It is important to all those who have been engaged in the development and production of integrated circuits in the United Kingdom, important to the companies in this business, important to all the companies in the electronics industry which use integrated circuits in the equipment which they make, and important to all those other industries which are the ultimate customers for such equipment.
472
I wish to say straight away that, like my hon. Friend, I have sincere sympathy for those who have recently been made redundant. The fact that the problem is immensely difficult, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate to the House, in no way detracts from my concern for the personal difficulties of the men and women affected.
The current difficulties facing our own manufacturers of integrated circuits are not peculiar to companies in the United Kingdom. Indeed, manufacturers of integrated circuits in all parts of the world are facing these same difficulties. This includes the United States of America. In the U.S.A. a number of big companies have even withdrawn from this business because of the fierceness of the competition. These include two such famous companies as Philco-Ford and Sylvania.
Although I agree with many of the points put forward by my hon. Friend, in face of the evidence of what is happening in the United States, I cannot agree with his suggestion about an American bid to try to undermine the commercial viability of our companies in order that they can take over, because, as he indicated, some of the prices prevailing in America are even lower than they are here.
In my judgment, these difficulties stem from over-production in the world, brought about by increased efficiency in methods of production coinciding with cutbacks in the aerospace programmes of the United States and with the temporary flattening off of demand in other countries, including the United Kingdom.
The large output of certain types of integrated circuits now flowing from the assembly plants set up by United States companies in low labour cost areas, such as Singapore and Portugal, has forced prices down sharply throughout the world.
I will add to the information which my hon. Friend gave to the House by giving some examples of the extent of this price-cutting. In December, 1969, a dual lead flip flop, made on a 50,000 production run, sold at 96p a unit; today the price for the same unit is 12.5 new pence. A. simple quad gate, to which my hon. Friend referred, on a similar production run was 40 new pence a unit in December, 1969; today it is 5 new pence. To

473
give the House an idea of the scale of activities which we are discussing, let me say that the domestic market in 1970 for integrated circuits from all sources was of the order of £17 million and about half of this was supplied by indigenous manufacture. In the United Kingdom the manufacturers of integrated circuits fall into 3 groups, first, the three U.K.-owned companies—Plessey, G.E.C. and Ferranti; second, a number of subsidiaries of American companies, a few of which merely import assembled circuits; and, third, two subsidiaries of European-owned companies, S.G.S. and Mullard.
The entry of the United Kingdom into the E.E.C. will provide opportunities for closer links between U.K.-owned and European-owned companies. I am confident that our companies have this in mind, but they all are faced with strong import competition now. Despite extensive investment by the companies operating in the United Kingdom, about half of the market here for integrated circuits is supplied from overseas sources. The bulk of these imports comes from American companies, although by no means all the imports arrive from the United States. Large quantities arrive from assembly plants in low labour cost areas. I should also point out that last year 43 per cent. of total imports came into the U.K. duty-free, from Singapore and E.F.T.A., where the manufacturing units were almost entirely American-owned companies.
All this indicates the dominant position of the United States companies. This is not surprising, as the market in the U.S.A. has been so large. As my hon. Friend knows, U.S. military and space requirements have been the original pacesetter and remain the major factor in the main advances in this technology and in production techniques. The foreign-owned subsidiary companies have been welcomed to this country. They play a useful part. They have provided employment and assist in providing a spur to the U.K.-owned companies in technology, marketing and management. They are especially welcomed when they set up plants here to perform the important processes and, more so, if they undertake R. and D.
It is disappointing to the Government, and serious for the workers, when, in times of reduced demand, these companies
474
have to reduce the volume of their activities in the United Kingdom. The effects of this can be particularly acute in areas such as Scotland where several of the companies established their U.K. bases.
We expect that these foreign-owned companies will continue to form an important part of the micro-electronics industry in this country, but we must pay close attention to the interests of U.K.-owned companies. The U.K.-owned companies have been in this business from the start. As my hon. Friend pointed out they are not behind on technology. They are well able to provide the important service for the equipment makers' requirements for special circuits custom-designed to meet particular needs. But neither they nor any of the other indigenous manufacturers in the United Kingdom or on the Continent of Europe have been able to match the low prices of the imported standard circuits without incurring losses which, I understand, have been substantial.
This is the position despite the injection of public funds. In addition to some support by the Ministry of Defence and through the Advanced Computer Technology Project, the previous Administration arranged for an investment by the National Research Development Corporation of £5 million in the three U.K.-owned companies. That investment is recoverable by levy on the sales of integrated circuits. The Government are committed to meet the shortfall between the receipts from those levies and the minimum recovery which the Corporation could accept in each year until 1980.
Negotiations will take place with G.E.C. on the arrangements to be made to safeguard the Corporation's investment in the light of the decision now reached by G.E.C. to rationalise its micro-electronics activities and to close the factories at Glenrothes and Witham. This recent decision has been reached against the background of the ferocious competition on standard circuits. I understand that the rationalisation announced by the company is a result of G.E.C.'s conclusion that it can see no prospect of competing in the low-priced circuits. The company will, therefore, concentrate its efforts on special circuits, mainly, but not entirely, for its own equipment requirements. My hon. Friend's suggestion was that the basic cause has been the dumping of

475
standard circuits. The prices of circuits of that type offered in the United Kingdom from overseas sources have been very low. I understand that prices for the same devices have fallen steeply in other parts of the world, including the United States. When the allegation of dumping was made in the debate on the Adjournment on 27th May, the Lord President replied that no evidence had been produced to us that the circuits were being dumped into the U.K. market and this still remains the position as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Aerospace made clear in questions on Monday.
But we remain ready to consider a formal application by this sector of the industry in the U.K. for anti-dumping action. But we shall need prime facie evidence from the industry that the circumstances appear to satisfy the requirements of U.K. legislation. I am glad my hon. Friend recognises the criteria necessary to constitute dumping. It has also been suggested that imports of circuits should be controlled through quotas or a higher tariff. This is one of a number of suggestions also put to us by the trade association for the electronic components industry. We are considering these suggestions, but there are several aspects that need to be taken into account.
Integrated circuits are of no value on their own. Their value is realised when they are incorporated in equipment, making that equipment more reliable, smaller, lighter and cheaper than it would be with discrete components. Some equipments embody large numbers of integrated circuits, and therefore the interests of competitiveness of the equipment manufacturers must not be overlooked in considering action which would tend to increase the price of circuits they need.
The tariff of 20 per cent. ad valorem is a high rate and is significant in relation to special circuits. The bulk of the low-priced standard circuits are imported duty free from Singapore and E.F.T.A. We must also take into account our policy towards under-developed Commonwealth countries and our obligations under trade agreements, especially to G.A.T.T. and the E.F.T.A. Convention. There is also the U.N.C.T.A.D. generalised preference scheme.
It is not possible for me to say anything further tonight. The matter is still
476
being given careful consideration and I have simply given my hon. Friend an indication of some of the difficulties involved. He has also raised the possibility of further direct financial support and we shall consider this. We could not aspire, however, to provide support approaching the scale of the massive support enjoyed by the United States companies. The market sizes are so different, with the United States market of the order of £180 millions in 1970—ten times greater than our own, and the scale of public procurement here, although important, is nowhere near that of the United States.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the points he has.
In our continuing examination we shall take into account everything that my hon. Friend has said tonight on this important subject and I can assure him we have not got closed minds.

ROYAL DOCKYARDS
5.57 a.m.
Dame Joan Vickers: The Mallabar Report is a long, complicated and detailed document. It is unfortunate that the Chairman of this Committee was Chairman of Harland and Wolff during 1966 to 1970, during which years the firm lost £8 millions, so he seems hardly the person to whom one would go to for advice.
The report is also out of date, and it worried me that when it was presented the Government appeared to be willing to accept its recommendations without debate. This is why I asked for one tonight. The Royal Dockyards are in a different category to all other establishments. They are like fire stations, with personnel on hand for an emergency. After all, 5 per cent. of their work is qualified as unplanned programmes. With fewer ships, the turn-round must be much quicker, so there needs to be a stand-by labour force.
What surprised me in the report was that the C.E.D. has a headquarters staff of 294 in three new departments. I should have thought that the Director of Dockyard Manpower and Productivity was not necessary, and that the work was much better done locally in the

477
dockyards themselves. What is forgotten is that each yard has a different personality. Having visited all of them, I know that their ways of working are quite different.
At present, the General Manager has no direct authority over recruiting. In paragraph 51, the report says:
"At present, the General Manager has no direct authority over recruiting, promotion or dismissal of non-industrial staff, except in respect of temporary clerical staff."
At present, the general manager has no possibility either for recruiting industrial staff. The manager is consulted apparently on individuals posted in by the civilian management and also in regard to naval officers, although he has no influence over the selection of naval officers. It must be very difficult for him, as only he knows the day-to-day needs. It is ridiculous that the general managers' department operates in a headquarters located at Bath, in the Dockyard Department. How many staff are there now at Bath? This would appear to be the type of department that should be cut down.
Devonport is the only yard that does construction work. The last survey ship was designed and built in the yard, and this could be done again with great saving of money. For example, if the dockyard says it will build a frigate at an estimated cost of £6½ million, it must be built for that amount. It cannot ask for extra money later, as commercial firms do if costs rise. One of the main problems is that the Admiralty is never wrong, which makes local conditions very difficult. Dockyards have also to contend with the Department of the Environment—the old Ministry of Public Building and Works—which adds to their burdens and delays.
I hope that the general managers will not be forced to retire at 60, unless the C.E.D., who I gather will be 60 next year, will also have to retire. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that many of the general managers have only been doing their jobs for five years when they reach the age of 60.
The work of naval officers is not properly understood in the report. In the United States the naval dockyards are entirely run by naval officers. They are none the worse for that and turn out twice
478
the rate per civilian as United Kingdom dockyards. The report assumes that naval officers have less experience in yards than their R.C.N.C. and R.N.E.S. counterparts. In practice, this is not so. The latter tend to spend more time away on tours in other areas. Also, naval officers have man-management training, besides being technicians and fully qualified for their own departments.
If we want more efficiency we should get rid of the cloud-cuckoo-land atmosphere of Bath. This will help to eliminate the cynicism at yard level because of the continual petty interference, which I find is extremely aggravating, and the inability of Bath to deal with the root troubles quickly. Any normal private industry would be driven mad by the present régime which the dockyards have to put up with, and that is why I am so disappointed with this report, since there is no real suggestion for improvements.
One wants agreement to build rather than to repair. The Admiralty is continually trying to put new wine into old bottles. I suggest that it is cheaper and easier to go for a few modern ships. The "Ark Royal" has proved what can be done, if necessary, to refit a ship, and it was done excellently but I do not advocate that. I regard it as an expensive way of working the yards, and anyhow I would much sooner see that that is not done to the smaller ships in future.
Further, on the question of the use of the yards, one should remember the excellent work done at the time of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster, which would have been much worse if the dockyard had not taken action.
Besides the ordinary work, one has to think of the accident and emergency repair work done not only for the Fleet but for N.A.T.O. This is an obligation we have to undertake, and it comes under the heading of what I call unprogrammed work.
Unfortunately, at the present time there is a tendency to use private contractors for building or repairing R.F.As, and I hope that my hon. Friend will see that this stops. Also, too much contract work it put out, often with consequent delays, and this at a time when all the work possible is needed in the dockyard to help to counterbalance high unemployment, particularly in the South-West.

479
As regards organisation, I am not discussing the R.O.F.s though I could under this heading. I am dealing only with the dockyards. Unfortunately, they do not have their own Vote as do the R.O.F.s. Dockyard expenditure is approximately £100 million a year, but the figure is clouded by the fact that it has to be split between 18 sub-heads, four Ministry of Defence Votes and 15 Vote holders to P.U.S., P.U.S.(e) or P.U.S.(a), and also now the Department of the Environment. All this causes considerable complication. Why was it not suggested in the report that the dockyards should have their own Vote, as do the Royal Ordnance Factories?
On the question of administration, it is said in paragraph 55 of the report:
"In many instances their terms of reference do not make the project manager accountable for the resources he is allocated nor is he held responsible for any aspects of the work other than the completion of the task by the required date. In other words, the line management responsibilities for the various dockyard functions remain undisturbed and the project managers' functions are superimposed upon the basic organisation."
Then we read that there is one exception; that is,
"where the project manager is a deputy manager and retains line management responsibilities."
That is an extremely complicated way of running things, and I hope that my hon. Friend will look into it.
It should be remembered—it does not seem to be recognised in the report—that the dockyards are building for the Royal Navy, not pleasure cruise ships. Men have to use these ships as their homes. If I wanted to know whether a ship was seaworthy or whether a submarine would behave as it should, I would much sooner have a naval officer do the tests, because he will go to sea in the ship, he will see that it is safe, and he will see also that the conditions are right for his crew.
So let the dockyards get on with the work which they have been doing for 300 years with great efficiency, let them have modern equipment and better working conditions, for in that way we shall get better results.
Paragraph 117(1) says:
"the Area Industrial and Non-Industrial Whitley Committee over which the Admiral Superintendent presides should have no locus
480
in relation to those staff that are employed in the General Manager's department or whose pay is negotiated by the General Manager."
The whole of the Whitley Committee procedure needs revising, particularly with regard to the yards. These should have a greater responsibility for decisions. I worked in the Royal Ordnance Factories during the war and found that the Whitley Committees got bogged down with tiny details of administration, whereas they should take a much greater interest in planning.
Since Devonport is undergoing a £43 million face-lift, I presume—and perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm this—that the yard is in no danger of being closed. I would like this assurance, because it would make a tremendous difference to the whole neighbourhood and employment in the area. I do not take the criticism about there being a high level of overtime at Devonport. The Committee visited Devonport for one morning and did not meet the trade unions. Admittedly, it offered to, but the trade unions, naturally, felt that half an hour was not enough. In my opinion to state "symptoms of unhealthy situations" in the yards is not accurate. We have loyal, hardworking and highly skilled men working in the yards, and the strike record must be the envy of all commercial yards.
We believe that the Navy should act as the customer, and we have always been told that the customer is always right. The R.N. officers play a helpful rôle and they are highly skilled. I am grateful to the Minister who is to call a meeting to talk with dockyard M.P.s. I want an assurance that there will be consultations with each of the yards before decisions are taken. Many changes have taken place recently and it would be unwise and unsettling to make too many alterations and so destroy the pattern of work. There are five study groups working in the Admiralty, and a Departmental feasibility study of the validity of these recommendations is being held. There are also two management consultant exercises. I wonder why it is necessary to have this fantastic number of committees when so little seems to be coming out of them. No wonder people are anxious about their daily work.
My next topic is something not mentioned in the report. It has to do with

481
inventions. The dockyards have a good record for inventions among their employees. This encourages them to help in the working of the yard. They receive only £20 reward. I understand that the judgment methods are cumbersome. They should be quicker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been very helpful about one case. I had a letter from him yesterday. I would like to see these people being allowed to patent their inventions and get 5 per cent. of any of the royalties. This would be a great incentive for improving the efficiency of the yard.
I thank my hon. Friend for coming here to reply. He may not be able to do so in detail, but I know that we shall have a further opportunity for a meeting next week.
6.10 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) for giving me an early opportunity to comment briefly on the report on the Government's civil industrial establishments, which was laid before the House earlier this month. She suggested that the Government wished the report to be accepted without debate. That was a little unfair. We were, indeed, under no obligation to publish the report at all. We did so, however, and, as my hon. Friend has said, I have invited, in relation to the second part of the report, which concerns me, all those hon. Members with interests in the dockyards to meet me next week to discuss the best way to implement those sections of the report which can be implemented and which parts should be implemented.
The first part of the report concerns the Royal Ordnance Factories, which are not strictly within my competence. It is being considered by the new Defence Procurement Agency, and when Mr. Rayner has completed the study he will report to my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
Some of the points my hon. Friend raised spring from the report and some are peripheral to its main theme. I am grateful to Sir John Mallabar and his colleagues for their work. It is true that the work has been overtaken by events to some extent. Nevertheless, the principles behind it are acceptable to
482
the Government, and over the last two years we have taken a number of steps to inject a greater sense of purpose into the dockyard organisation, which was what the report had in mind.
I know that my hon. Friend is not fond of boards and inquiries but we have streamlined the organisation, both under my predecessor's direction and mine, into three new boards. The first is the Royal Dockyard Management Board under the chairmanship of the Chief Executive, with the membership of the three headquarters directors and four home general managers. It meets at frequent intervals to discuss general policy issues affecting the home dockyards. A point overlooked by my hon. Friend perhaps in her criticism of Bath is that quite a few problems are common to the four home dockyards and, indeed, to Gibraltar, and need to be considered centrally. Many of them concern vital matters of manpower and productivity. This is why the Director of Manpower and Productivity has a key post and the Board has the task of reviewing management throughout the four home dockyards and trying to ensure as great a degree of commonality as possible.
Secondly, there is the Headquarters Board, which is again under the chairmanship of the Chief Executive. The three headquarters directors are also members. This goes round the Navy yards to monitor the state of affairs in each and the progress being made with individual programmes.
Finally, there is the Royal Dockyard Policy Board, which is under my chairmanship. The terms of reference are to consider and advise on management policy for achieving the best use of the material and human resources available to the Royal Dockyards. It consists of all those members of the Admiralty Board concerned with the dockyards, plus the Chief Executive and two outside members chosen for their expertise in finance and management—Sir Henry Benson, of Cooper Brothers, and Mr. Richard O'Brien, of the Delta Metal Company.
Following this central reorganisation, which coincided with the appointment of the Chief Executive, we are progressively introducing, as the report recommended and as my hon. Friend mentioned, project managers into all the yards to handle large individual projects, particularly

483
modernisations and conversions, Good examples are H.M.S. "Ark Royal" and the conversion of H.M.S. "Hermes" to commando carrier and of H.M.S. "Matapan" to experimental trials vessel. The most dramatic example of all is the recently completed refit of H.M.S. "Resolution" at Rosyth. This was an extremely sophisticated and difficult job and it was finished on time—a fact which was much admired by the United States Navy, as I discovered when I visited the United States last month.
Paragraph 9 of the report contains certain strictures about the dockyards, referring particularly to the high levels of overtime, waiting time and low productivity. I think that these strictures are now out of date. There has, clearly, been a marked improvement in these matters, and all the indications are that the productivity agreements now operating in each dockyard have done much to remove these specific complaints.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to the authority of the general manager, particularly his authority to hire and fire non-industrials and his authority over naval officers. We have gone some way over the last few years to strengthen the authority of the general manager and to give him a clear chain of command through the chief executive and ultimately to the Chief of Fleet Support, who is the responsible Board member. I think that every general manager now knows precisely where he stands in the hierarchy, and the line of responsibility is clear and direct.
Nevertheless, we have to realise that we are not dealing with a normal commercial operation. We are dealing with something which, whether rightly or not, is part of the Civil Service, and the normal Civil Service rules apply. Therefore, it is not possible to give the general manager the same authority over non-industrials which would be enjoyed by the general manager of a totally independent company.
My hon. Friend referred also to the retirement of the general manager at the age of 60. Here, too, we are bound by the Civil Service rules. In the Civil Service the clear rule is that people retire when they reach 60, and there seems to be no good reason why we should attempt to make an exception in
484
respect of general managers. That is not to say that I do not acknowledge the contribution which they have given to the dockyards, but they themselves would recognise that if we are to attract the right calibre of person that we want in the management of the dockyards, we cannot afford to retain senior staff in excess of the normal time and so deny promotion opportunities to those below. In this we are no different from any industrial or commercial undertaking which seeks to bring its young men along.
My hon. Friend referred to the employment of naval officers in the dockyards. She specifically mentioned the United States experience. While in the United States, I managed to visit the naval yards at Longbeach and Boston and there saw the major part that naval officers play in the management of the dockyards. Indeed, the whole of the higher management of the dockyard is in the hands of naval officers, although I would not go so far as my hon. Friend did and say that nearly all management is. Further down the line individual plants are managed by civilians.
There is a suggestion in the report that the quota system for naval officers in some way prevented flexibility. I do not think that that is true. There is certainly no prejudice against the employment of naval officers in dockyards, and the quota system is for planning purposes only. The chief executive is fully consulted about every naval appointment before it takes place in the same way as he is about all civilian appointments.
The report suggests making certain posts open to naval officers and civilians to which appointment should be made on merit. This would give rise to a number of practical difficulties in career planning, and the way in which we handle the matter at the moment is probably better.
Another matter has been worrying my hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members who are connected with the dockyards. It is the suggestion in the report that, where possible, there should be greater competition with outside yards and, secondly, that we should consider whether there is likely to be scope for closing a dockyard. My hon. Friend herself mentioned the work put out to contract and particularly the Royal

485
Fleet Auxiliary ships. We avoid putting work out to contract as much as we can. Experience has shown that the scope for placing warship work with commercial shipyards is subject to serious limitations. In particular, commercial yards do not have the facilities necessary to handle a modern sophisticated weapons system. The dockyards, on the other hand, are equipped to handle, with certain major exceptions, all work arising from refits. Since it would be uneconomic to duplicate expensive facilities, Ministry of Defence policy is to resort to contract refits only in those cases where the work cannot be physically handled in the Royal Dockyards either because of a temporary overload in certain trades or because specialist plant and equipment does not exist. The recent decision—the first for a long time—to place the refit of H.M.S. "Otter" to contract is an example of the former. It is the first warship to be refitted by contract for many years, and we have no plans to put any other warship out to contract.
As to the second point concerning the possible closure of a dockyard, while no one can be expected to forecast the future for decades ahead, I assure my hon. Friend that we have no plans to close any of the home dockyards. If it were the case that the dockyards were not fully loaded, no one could quarrel with the general proposition in the report that it would be more cost-effective to close down one yard and utilise the remaining three to the full rather than retain four under-used yards; but that is not the case. This situation is purely hypothetical.
As far as we can foresee, the dockyards will have a more than adequate workload in the future. In addition to their normal task of repairing warships, there is scope for the refitting of Royal Fleet auxiliaries when capacity is available. When the capacity is not available, they must be refitted by commercial yards. We also intend to continue to build certain small craft in the dockyards. As my hon. Friend knows very well, we retain the option to build larger vessels at Devonport.
Whatever scale of dockyard operations might be dictated by current needs of the Fleet, we are determined that the dockyards shall continue to improve their
486
efficiency as industrial units. There is evidence that the local productivity agreements, which exist, I am happy to say, in each dockyard, are leading to improvements in date-keeping and containment of costs, and we are anxious to continue this trend in an atmosphere of good industrial relations.
As part of this process, a special meeting of the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council is to be held on 18th August to consider with the trade unions ways and means of tackling present difficulties, particularly at Devonport, in the balance of manpower, capacity and workload in a manner that will continue to reap the benefits of both management and men of the productivity agreements. The discussion will include such matters as the size of the apprentice entry, retirement policy and the need for an element of retraining if redundancy is to be avoided. I attach great importance to the meeting and hope that it will be a considerable success.
My hon. Friend mentioned also the reference in the report to the Whitley Council. I think that the Committee took a rather oversimplified view of the present Whitley structure. So far as the general manager's organisation is concerned, the present Whitley consultative facilities are satisfactory. In matters of local negotiation, the general manager has independent and full control through the separate joint productivity negotiating committees whose existence is authorised by the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council. I do not consider, therefore, that it is quite as simple as the Committee appeared to think to set up a Whitley Council for the general manager's organisation at the moment. The way we are doing it, although it may appear to be clumsy, works a good deal better.
My hon. Friend referred to awards and asked whether I thought that £20 was adequate. Probably in many cases it is not adequate, but these matters are dictated as general policy over the whole Government field. I certainly take the point made by my hon. Friend and I will look into it. As she will recognise, I could not this morning promise her any improvement in this regard.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I think that the report has been worth while, even if we are unable to endorse all its recommendations, and I believe that we are

487
now moving towards a sensible system within the Royal Dockyards which will be of great service to the fleet and to the country as a whole.

COMPUTERS (CONTROL OF PERSONAL INFORMATION)
6.25 a.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise what I consider to be a very important subject, though I must show some sympathy for the hon. and learned Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who is to reply, as I think that I can speak with the advantage of having had some 3½ hours sleep, a shower and two cups of tea. If he can somehow summon up the lucidity which I know he normally shows in this Chamber, I shall be very grateful.
I want to stress from the very outset of my remarks that I am not anti-computer. I recognise that the computer is here to stay, and that it would be foolish to talk of banning a whole generation of computer technology. As with the wheel, the steam turbine and the jet engine it would be impossible to get rid of a generation of technology. My aim in everything I have tried to do in the House relevant to the computer has been to try to adapt it to society and to avoid society having to adapt to it. In essence, I want the computer to be our servant, not our master.
As the Minister knows, I have been responsible for the introduction of the Control of Personal Information Bill, which deals with many of the points I want to raise now. It is a Bill which essentially sets up a tribunal to control the operation of data banks, license their operation and establishes an independent inspectorate. I should like to deal with some of the main features later.
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are many manual filing systems already existing, and most of them have some of the dangers to which I want to refer. It is because of that that my Bill deals with those also. But the main contribution that the computer makes is that all the old human inertial factors, all the old human errors, and all
488
the old difficulties of getting together complex manual filing systems can be obviated by the computer——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he has just let fall something that might put him outside the rules of order if he is not careful. He must not discuss a Bill which he proposes to bring in.
Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for that reminder. I do not want here to re-introduce the Bill, but I am sure that you will understand that it is very germane to my arguments, although I do not intend to advance those arguments in the context of that Bill now.
The main contribution of the computer to all of us is that it makes the storage, the retrieval and the collection of its information much easier. Its unique contribution to the technological revolution is that it facilitates the collection centrally of large masses of data which previously might have been stored all over the country in filing cabinets or in manual filing systems. The Minister knows of many of his own Government's Departments where such centralised collection is facilitated. He also knows that the development of peripherals and computer software with multi-access systems, and time sharing, and the transmission of data developments which have taken place, have certainly increased the number of access points to the centralised collection. So it is not just by centralised collection that the computer can make a significant contribution, but also in the dissemination of that information, particularly through remote access terminals.
As I am sure the Minister knows, we have at the moment no legal framework for the development of all these networks. I am aware that we have a certain minimal number of examples of case law, but as yet there is no overall, comprehensive legal framework into which the computer should fit. In essence, the problems are with us now, but we do not have the legal tools to deal with them.
Perhaps I may make some reference to the report of the Civil Service Department entitled "Computers in Central Government 10 Years Ahead." It states that on 30th June, 1969, there were

489
already 182 computers in use, and 34 more on order. The Defence Department, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Trade and Industry are particularly heavy computer users, and especially in some of the Civil Service pay, adminisstration and maintenance systems there are also now quite extensive computer facilities. These figures have already been outdated and up-dated in evidence given to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, Sub-Committee A.
It is interesting to note in that Report, particularly at page 23 onwards, the kind of developments envisaged. We already have the Department of Health and Social Security networks at Newcastle and Reading, and the one at Reading will even deal with individual case work. We have the computer of the Department of Employment at Runcorn, and we shall have the Home Office systems, with the national police computer linked with the central vehicle licensing computer at Swansea. The Lord Chancellor's Department will have a system centred on Kidbrooke, and the Inland Revenue has one P.A.Y.E. centre operating and will have others shortly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told me in reply to a Question yesterday that we shall have computers in the administration of value added tax. In many modern tax applications the collection of taxes and the administration of our taxation system is possible only if computers are used.
One of my main concerns about the use of computers in the centralised collection of data is that once we start to integrate the data from various sources certain safeguards must apply. The hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me that there are inter-departmental working parties, and that it is only the public sector that will have the information. But on page 44 of the Report to which I have just referred, in paragraph 182(b) and (c), we find references to links with the private sector as well. What is meant by the statement in paragraph 182(b) that
"… the development of links between DHSS, the London Clearing Banks and PGO will be made easier because, fortuitously, all three will be operating with ICL System 4 computers"?
Does that meant that there will be some kind of inter-locking between the D.H.S.S., private bank accounts and the Giro? This kind of thing should be explained in more detail.
490
Following the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee, and the formation of directorates of social services on the local level, the way is opened up, with the administration of larger Government and local authority social networks, for integration of local and central government social services. We already have proposals of the London Boroughs Association, centred at Haringey, for doing this, very much along the lines of the centralised systems already operated in Alameda County, San Francisco. We have large examples of payment and personal details, not only at local but national level, already kept in the Government's own Departments, for the administration of pay and personnel.
There are many references in the Report to integration. If one keynote emerges it is that of the facilities which now exist for integration, and the desirability of integrating the computer systems, particularly for economies of scale. It is very definitely stated that much of the planning, programming and budgeting work of the Government will need integration.
We have in the current developments all the hallmarks of the kind of haphazard development in the United States, again without any comprehensive legal framework. It is because we have a system developing haphazardly, without any legal framework, a system which I believe does not have the necessary safeguards, that I am particularly worried. I hope, for instance, that the national police computer never acquires some of the overtones of the F.B.I. and Defence Department computers under J. Edgar Hoover, and that many of the safeguards the Americans are now discussing, far too late, will be discussed before the national police computer, with its 700 or 800 terminals, becomes fully operational. The integration of this computer system with the central vehicle licensing computer, which will store not only names and addresses but the ages and sex of vehicle owners, represents a very comprehensive collection of information.
I am aware that many of these systems are still under discussion. The Minister for Transport Industries would not lay claim to the successful working yet of the central vehicle licensing computer at Swansea. The Minister will no doubt tell me that his Department is still studying

491
what can be done with the national police computer, but it is because many of these systems are only now being discussed that we must work now towards legal frameworks.
Another example of a local authority computer project in which two or three Government Departments will have some kind of sponsoring responsibility is the system now being discussed by seven local authorities under the local authorities' computer committee—LAMSAC—under the auspices of the National Computing Centre for the computerised filing of educational and performance data on 600,000 school children. I have raised this subject before in the House, and I was gratified that the Under-Secretary for Trade and Industry shared my concern about some of the problems which could arise.
The power and possibilities of all these computer systems and the potential of computer developments are increasing, not in arithmetical, but in geometrical progression. We are at about the end of a long period of expansion of the computer industry, and the industry must sort itself out and regroup and rationalise to take stock of the rapid developments. Because the state of the computer art is fast developing, we must have a legislative framework now.
I suppose one of the difficulties to which the Minister will refer is that there is a very high personnel mobility in the industry. There is no appropriately recognised career structure in the industry. It is a very young industry in which data processing managers, programmers and even punch key operators change their jobs with amazing frequency. Because of all these fast developments, I was most concerned to see in the Report only one paragraph on page 60, tucked away in an appendix, on file security. This is a lengthy Report and the presence in it of one meagre paragraph on file security highlights the importance of the matter, and the lack of attention given to it.
As Professor Alan Westin has categorised these developments in information, we are moving from the functional data bank procedures to the jurisdictional data bank procedures. Because data banks are being built up which will be capable of making value judgments and decisions on the agglomeration
492
of information processed, we must treat these developments with great care and have safeguards built into them. A mere collection of names and addresses, a mere collection of names and ages or a mere collection of names and examination performance may not enable us to make accurate value judgments on individuals, but once we start to accumulate masses of information from various sources we start to move towards Alan Westin's jurisdictional category of data banks.
All this is highlighted because there have been developments pari passu in the private sector and there have been some alarming examples in the United States, particularly in the credit bureau sector. Worrying links have been developing in the United States between Government systems and private systems. We have credit registers being operated by the United Association for the Protection of Trade, British Data Services and Tracing Services Limited.
I pay tribute to the Daily Mirror which this morning carries a fine article on some of the risks in the private sector in the collection and dissemination of information by private sources. I realise that I am supposed to be talking about computers in Government Departments, but one of the dangers is the temptation to integrate certain parts of the private and public sectors for the benefit of economies of scale. The Daily Mirror has set a fine example in highlighting some of the problems which already exist in the private sector where, in the main, computers are not yet being used.
We have also seen in The Guardian newspaper some horrifying examples of what is happening. There have been accusations about leaks of information from Government Departments—information which in most cases had to be given on a compulsory basis. All this proves conclusively that this information is not as confidential as one may have thought.
Only yesterday The Guardian contained another story about the lengths to which private snoopers and information-gatherers go. I am glad that the Daily Mirror, The Guardian and other newspapers have now latched on to and published the risks involved in the collection and dissemination of this information. We all remember the big exposé in the Birmingham Post at the beginning of last

493
year about the practices to which data systems in the Department of Health and Social Security and even the police lend themselves. I am aware that these services are not yet fully computerised, but they already involve some of the same kind of risks.
On top of all this, we have the peripheral risks involved in telephone tapping, eavesdropping and all the kind of prying which can occur in computer systems. Once people learn how a computer works, there are many ways in which they can get their hands on information to which they have no right of access.
In the United States as a result of the faults thrown up in the systems there people have already reached the stage of tending not to trust the Government as much as they did. I would hate this country to reach that stage in relation to our Government in the matter of private and individual information.
There is a well known saying that an Englishman's home is his castle. Data bank information must have a moat and portcullis as well. In view of the increasing amounts of information which Government departments are able to store on computers, it is essential that people who surrender information feel that it is being treated confidentially.
Until the Government have proved that they can handle this information on a qualified and confidential basis, individuals should perhaps be more suspicious about who is collecting the information and who is to disseminate it.
There was a very good example of this in the recent Census where information was collected for dissemination. Such information was demanded on pain of a £50 fine for non-compliance. The Census contained some very personal information which had to be surrendered. This matter was never adequately explained by the Registrar General's Department. We were told that the work was to be put under supervision or was to be discussed with representatives of the British Computer Society, a body for which I have a great regard. But when I learnt that the B.C.S. was being drawn into the picture only half way through, which probably meant that many of the risks had already been run, I was disappointed. Instead of the B.C.S. acting as some kind of
494
census watchdog, it seems that we were "sold a pup" without teeth or gums.
Furthermore, there are all the dangers of the reaction which society can develop to the collection and dissemination of this information. Instead of personal anonymity and "personality" behaviour, everything begins to become "behaviour for the record". We begin to move towards the veritable "goldfish bowl society", to the state where technical developments mean that previously personal behaviour and private anonymity become public events, recorded, with information collected and stored. It is then that some of the essential ingredients of the quality of life in this country begin to be put at risk.
I do not want to anticipate what the hon. and learned Gentleman will say, but I venture to suggest that he will refer to the Younger Committee. I have testified before that Committee. I am grateful for the courteous way in which I was treated, and I was impressed by the Committee's understanding of the problems.
The Younger Committee's terms of reference include only the private sector. However, it will have to make reference to the public sector, and I suspect that the hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us that there are already interdepartmental working parties on the subject. The trouble is that, by the time that these reports are published, they will be out of date. The state of the computer art is developing too rapidly for them not to be.
It is difficult to understand why the terms of reference of the Committee cannot be widened so as to include the Government sector. Associations ranging from the National Council for Civil Liberties, which has performed a very useful service in drawing public attention to the abuses contained in the systems, to the National Union of Teachers have drawn attention to these abuses.
It would be a fine gesture to extend the terms of reference of the Younger Committee. As the Minister knows, the Conservative lawyers' association is about to issue some kind of report detailing its concern about data banks and credit control. I have no wish to demean the hon. and learned Gentleman's party in this respect, because there have been one or two notable contributions in pamphlet

495
form from it. Great concern was expressed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition. Much concern has focussed on the fact that the Younger Committee is considering only the private sector.
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will indicate to us the Government's thinking on these matters, especialy about possible legislation. I know that I cannot make specific reference to my Control of Personal Information Bill. But when I testified in Washington before the United States Senate Sub-Committee on Constitutional Rights, I was encouraged to find that some of their legislative proposals were similar to my own.
Again without discussing the main proposals of my Bill, it is most important not only that the systems have some kind of independent control, but that individuals have the right to see the information on them that these computer systems already have stored. Every individual should have the right to see a print-out and to challenge the information. The right of verification is very important. I appreciate that there are certain difficulties with police and medical data. But I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me something about the proposals for seeing the print-outs and about verification and challenging of information which ought to be an essential feature of the many systems which the Government have in mind.
I hope, too, that he will be able to tell me about the need for access control and audit trails. I know that various Government departments have large numbers of computer programmers on their staff. A feature of both the last Government and this Government is that they have been reluctant to hand out some of the software development contracts to private industry. They have preferred to keep it in their own hands. There may be a reason for it, but I doubt whether this is the best way of protecting the British computer industry. Because both the Labour and Conservative Governments chose to keep a lot of this software development in their own hands, large numbers of computer personnel on the staff of various Government Departments ought to be subjected to the access control and audit trail procedures.
496
The hon. Gentleman will tell me I hope about the procedures which the Government may introduce for up-dating the information and setting time limits on its collection. Are we to have any scrambler systems? Are we to have call-back procedures? What kind of visual checks are we to have? I hope that the Minister will tell me that at last Government Departments are coming round to some kind of code of personnel computer practice.
At this juncture I should like to pay tribute to the fine example set by the British Computer Society, under its current president, Alex d'Agapeyell, in creating a code of personnel practice for the industry. It is a fine example of something which is long overdue. I hope that the kind of example set by the B.C.S. will be taken up and promulgated by the various Departments. It is essential in the transfer of personnel from one department to another, and, indeed, from the public to the private sector, that we have some kind of code of practice. This applies particularly to Government departments where this information has to be surrendered on a highly compulsory basis.
What studies has the Department made on the collection of information as some kind of property right? This is one of the theories which has been advanced by some eminent lawyers who have suggested that it might be better if the situation were dealt with legally by considering information to have some kind of property right.
Does the Minister consider that there should be some kind of categorisation of the sensitivity of the information by this House or by another place? After all, some kind of judgment has to be made by this House and by the country as a whole on the sensitivity of this information.
I am aware that I have ranged over a wide topic at a highly unusual hour. I apologise to the Minister for raising so many subjects. I am sure that he will not be able to reply to all of them, but I hope that he will.
We have now reached an important point on the frontiers of the data bank society. I want to return to my original point. I am not afraid of the computer, because, by itself, it is just an idiot calculating machine. It has to be told

497
what to do, it has to be told to forget, and it has to be told to remember. It is the people who work and handle the computer, the industry and the computer's users about whom I am worried.
We are already getting a reaction against the computer. Many industries and individuals who have now had their first bite at the computer are pretty sore about it. They have spent a lot of money on it and is has not lived up to the claims made for it.
I hope that we shall not get an overall public reaction against the computer. People already know that the computer can give them gas bills for £1 million when they have in fact only one gas cooker. I do not want people to get into the habit of knowing, recognising, and having to accept that the computer has all their individual personal details stored away on it.
The situation is particularly acute in Britain, because many of the processes of integration which have happened in the United States will not have to happen here, because we start with nationally integrated systems. It is precisely because in so many Government Departments the systems will be initially centralised and integrated that my concern is so much the greater.
I pay tribute to the work the newspapers have done in drawing attention to this very important subject. There is an article in the Daily Mirror this morning. There have been the Guardian articles. "Action Line" of the Daily Express has drawn attention to problems. There is a great awareness in the Press and increasingly amongst the public at large of some of the risks which exist in the private sector. Those risks are just as endemic and just as large in the public sector. It is in the public sector that I believe that the Government should be setting an example.
I realise that I have set the hon. and learned Gentleman a mammoth task. I regard this as no reflection on him, because I know that he, too, is very interested in this subject. If he could provide me with a small crumb of comfort that at least his Department, and he himself, is aware of some of these problems, and if he could give me some encouragement and some grain of hope
498
that many of these proposals are not merely being considered by interdepartmental working parties but will be actively put into practice this year or next year, I shall feel that my rising at such an unearthly hour has not been in vain.
6.57 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) and I have two things certainly in common—we have both had three and a half hours sleep and we have both had two cups of coffee before entering the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has the complete advantage over me in that it appears that he has already read this morning's Daily Mirror.
I am aware, of course, of the hon. Gentleman's continuing intereset in this subject, of the fact that he has, as he said, introduced during the last Session a Bill to deal with the question of privacy and computers, and of the fact that he has built up a great deal of expertise and knowledge in this subject. I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. To a degree, I am bound to disappoint him, because there is little that I can say in reply which he does not know already.
The hon. Gentleman ended by asking me a series of rather detailed questions as to what we foresaw as the future with regard to safeguarding the information on computers. As recently as 11th March of this year, the hon. Gentleman put a similar Question to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon Friend replied in these terms:
"The Government are making a comprehensive survey of the categories of personnel information held or likely to be held in the computer systems of Departments, and of the rules governing its use … I cannot anticipate the findings of this survey."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March, 1971; Vol. 812, c. 148.]
Therefore, on the detailed questions, all that I can say is that, without in any way being able to anticipate the findings of that survey, I am sure that everything that the hon. Gentleman has said on this and other occasions will be closely borne in mind and that the Home Department is well aware of the problems the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

499
The hon. Gentleman is right not to attempt to argue against computers as such. We all accept that computers are here to stay. They are already widely used in industry, in local authorities and in government. The hon. Gentleman referred to his experience in America. I was also in America last year and saw the F.B.I. computer. No one could doubt the advantages of the amazing speed with which details could be produced in helping the police in the fight against crime as clearly something which is going to be used by the police throughout the world. But while one accepts that, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are fully aware of the public concern about their use in storing information about individuals. This concern relates to three matters: concern as to the accuracy of the information which is stored; concern as to the security of that information; and also the feeling that the ability to amass a vast amount of personal details and to have it in such a form which is easily transferrable is in many ways looked upon by some at least as some form of threat to individual liberty.
We are fully aware of these concerns and I would not in any way wish to underestimate the very real problems which could arise in a situation in which aggregated personal details could be passed with ease from one Government Department to another. It is easy to stress the possible mis-use and abuse of computers and the information they store without taking full recognition of the advantages that accrue on the other side. I am referring not only to the advantages, clear as they are, on economic grounds, nor to the advantages which accrue from the efficiency and speed which computers provide. I refer also to the advantage there can be in the security of the information itself. Almost anyone can read a manual record where information is now normally kept in which the individual is easily identifiable. But only those with special skills can read computer language, and even then the information they obtain is meaningless unless they know the code which identifies the individual.
Therefore one can build into the system safeguards which make the security of information held in computers in many ways greater than information now kept
500
by conventional methods if the computers are properly used. I stress the words "properly used" because the Government fully appreciate that if improperly used computer records may facilitate the transfer of records which should not be used for any purpose other than that for which they are first obtained.
It is because the Government recognise this danger that it has put in hand an investigation into the establishment and use of computerised data banks by Government Departments which have been mentioned on previous occasions. On 18th February last year, in reply to a Question from the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler), the Prime Minister said that:
"An Interdepartmental group under the leadership of the Home Office is making a comprehensive survey of the categories of personal information held or likely to be held in the computer system of Government departments and of the rules governing its storage and use."
The comprehensive survey has been made of the categories of personal information held in the computer systems of Government Departments and the uses to which this information is put are now being examined in detail. The information obtained should enable the Government to consider what action should be taken to safeguard personal details, in the light of recommendations to be made by the Younger Committee on Privacy in the private sector, which is likely to report next year. This is not merely a paper exercise. We propose to put into practice the results of that inquiry.
The hon. Member asked me yet again why the Younger Committee's terms of reference were limited to the private sector. This matter was also raised with the previous Government just before the General Election. Both Governments have thought it right to limit the terms of the Younger Committee, which has an enormous remit. The Home Secretary said that there is the substantial difference between the use of computers in the private sector and those in Government, where there is an existing democratic control.
Until the inter-departmental survey has been completed and the Younger Committee has reported, the Government cannot reach any conclusion about the most effective methods of safeguarding

501
the privacy of information held. But the whole purpose of the inquiry is to find the necessary safeguards and the most effective measures.
The hon. Gentleman rightly stressed that, in the end, the computer is only a device, and that a great deal depends, as in all storage of information, on the integrity of the individuals who are responsible for its use, with the grave and greater danger here of the easy accessibility of a vast amount of information in a short time. But Government Departments have always paid a great deal of attention to the safeguarding of information about individuals. Administrative regulations and statutes like the Official Secrets Acts apply to information held by computers as much as by other means. Of course, in the end, the safety and security of any form of information must come down to the integrity of the individual, to whom the same regulations apply as to other members of the Civil Service.
Computers are purely mechanical devices, which cannot do anything that a human being cannot do, given the time and effort. They just do it much more thoroughly and quickly. The ability to amass such a large amount of information at one point prompts the fear that a wider variety of information becomes subject to the risk of falling into unauthorised hands, because files can be searched so quickly, even at a distance, by the use of remote terminals.
I fully understand and appreciate the concern which the hon. Gentleman expresses, and I have great respect for the tremendous amount of work which he has done in this subject, but I assure him that Government offices are extraordinarily careful about the need to safeguard personal information. This care is reflected not only in the rules to which civil servants are subject but in the security system which must protect such information.
The computer, as a complex mechanical device, lends itself admirably to coding information in a number of ways which would make information stored in it unintelligible to anyone who did not possess the key to the code. The hon. Gentleman knows far more than I do about the security systems which can be applied to information held on computers. I know
502
that he has talked to many people in this field, but I have talked to one or two of the companies involved, and I am sure that he will agree that they always say that, given the money, one can easily build in the necessary safeguards and security system.
I am conscious that I have really said nothing today which the hon. Gentleman was not aware of before, and my answer has largely been to the effect that all these matters are under review at this time. But I understand the concern, and the Government recognise it very well. That is why the review into their own procedure is being conducted. The main safeguard for the present is the discretion of the civil servant involved in handling sensitive information, or information which, if linked with other information, then becomes sensitive.
For the future, we are awaiting the outcome of that review, and we are awaiting the outcome of the Younger Committee on Privacy in the private sector. I am confident that we can deal with the problems raised by the computerisation of personal information well before they grow too large for us to handle. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be no good if the Government's inter-departmental review and the report of the Younger Committee on privacy arrived too late to be of any effect. He suggested that the report of the Younger Committee might be out of date by the time it was published. Incidentally, as I understand it, the clear intention is to publish that report. I say that off my own bat at the moment, but I have always understood that to be so.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any kind of results from the inter-Departmental working party will be published?
Mr. Carlisle: At this moment I cannot say. But I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says, and, knowing his interest, I shall write to him with any information I have about that.
I do not believe that these reports will come too late to be of use. We are all aware of the advantages of computers. We are all aware of the dangers to which they can give rise. But I believe that the advantages for society as a whole outweigh the dangers.

MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNICIANS
7.14 a.m.
Dr. M. S. Miller: Unlike the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield), I cannot claim to have had the advantage of 3½ hours' refreshing sleep or even a look at today's Daily Mirror. I have been waiting all night and this morning to enter this part of the debate. I sat through the whole of the debate on the situation on Upper Clyde Shipyards and unemployment in Scotland, and I should dearly have liked to take part, but I could not do so because of the rule which lays it down that this is one debate and, if I had entered at that stage, I should not have been able to do so now. I had to make a choice, and, knowing that my hon. Friends were more than adequate to the task of dealing with U.C.S. and unemployment in Scotland, I decided to pursue to the bitter end the task which I had allotted to myself originally.
It is interesting to note that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) and I criticise Whitley Councils on subjects so totally dissimilar. The matter I want to raise deals with medical laboratory technicians. The background is that there are about 10,000 of these in the National Health Service. My union, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs organises about half of those people. Here I want to declare an interest. The union has said that it intends sponsoring me, but for the duration of this Parliament I do not suppose that this applies. It will in any future Parliament to which I have the good fortune to be elected.
Three other unions, N.A.L.G.O., N.U.P.E. and C.O.H.S.E., organise in total about 1,200 workers. The terms and conditions of these technicians are negotiated by the Whitley Council, specifically by the professional and technical (B) Committee of Committee A on which A.S.T.M.S. has five seats and the other three unions have three seats each. The position at the moment is that on 15th June, 1971, by a majority of 8–5 with A.S.T.M.S. voting against, the unions on
504
the Committee decided to accept an offer to settle a salary and restructuring claim which had been outstanding since April, 1970.
My union informed the secretary of the staff side that it objected to this agreement. On 17th June the staff side secretary replied to the effect that an agreement had been made but that the agreement required confirmation by the Secretary of State for Social Services. At that point A.S.T.M.S. wrote to the right hon. Gentleman asking him to withhold this approval. An acknowledgement was received on 25th June and on 30th June the Department of Health and Social Security issued a circular, No. K/P155/08B, which could be interpreted as the go-ahead, the authority to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman wrote on 5th July saying that he saw no reason for not confirming the agreement. On 13th July I asked the right hon. Gentleman to withhold approval on the ground that the trade union representing half of the employers had voted against the terms of the settlement. I received the reply that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to withhold approval since:
"The agreement was properly reached in accordance with the constitution of the Whitley Council."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1971; vol. 821, c. 45.]
I want to deal first with the inadequacy of the proposed salary scale and secondly with the principle involved in union negotiations.
First, I deal with the salary scale. Under the new proposals, there are six main categories of medical laboratory technician. There is, first, the junior technician; the second category is that of technician; the third and fourth are two grades of senior technician; the fifth grade is known as chief technician and the top grade is principal technician.
The salary scale is loaded in favour of the highest grades, with little benefit to the lower. As examples of this, I take the case of the junior technician. A junior technician at the age of 21 will now earn £792 per annum. Under the old scale he received £779. He thus gets a munificent increase of £13 a year. This employee will have an ordinary national certificate, usually four O levels at the age of 16, and a further three years practical training in laboratories

505
plus theoretical instruction at technical college. Although he is not a fully qualified technician, he has a position of considerable responsibility. He takes part in all the technical work of the laboratory and is used in the "on-call" duty system. I could give other examples of the junior technician scale which show proposed increases ranging from £2 per annum to a maximum increase of £18.
The next level is that of technician. This is the first fully qualified level and it requires State registration and higher national certificate in medical laboratory technology, and once that certificate is gained the employee becomes an associate of the Institute of Medical Laboratory Technology. With these qualifications, the first grade of technician shows an increase from the old scale of £1,129 per annum to £1,131—a £2 a year increase. This is for someone who will have spent at least five years from the age of 16 in equipping himself for his career and is generally in his mid-twenties. Unless he is specifically promoted, he will automatically progress up the scale and will reach a maximum, under the new proposals, of £1,830 per annum in twelve years.
The next level is that of senior technician. Here, additional qualifications are necessary. He must have at least four of a staff serving under him or, alternatively, eight years post-registration. From here, further promotion depends upon further qualifications, a fellowship—F.I.M.L.T.—and also numbers of staff under his control. The top grade of principal technician must have 63 of a staff under his control. The top grade in the first category of senior technician will now attract a salary of £1,830 per annum. This level equates with an assistant experimental officer in the scientific Civil Service.
After a series of visits to Civil Service scientific establishments, for example, the Weybridge Veterinary Establishment and the centre at Porton, A.S.T.M.S. maintains that this level should be equated not with an assistant executive officer, but with an executive officer and that the top rank, the principal technician, should be equated with a chief executive officer in the scientific Civil Service, but no chief executive officer is required to have a staff of 63 under him.
506
Because the only worth-while increases are earmarked for the higher grades, the total extra cost of this settlement is a ludicrous £300,000 per annum for all 10,000 people in this service. The Whitley Council therefore appears to have bought the considerable influence of the top grades. In my opinion and that of the union, there has been a shameless disregard of the needs of the lower levels. A look through the proposed scale will show exactly what I mean, for the increases for people up to the very top of the senior scale are small—£34 per annum is the maximum—but in the chief technician scale there are increases which range from £271 to £427.
So much for the general inadequacy of payment and particularly the poor remuneration of the lower levels. I come to the principle of negotiation. There is certainly something wrong with negotiation machinery which rides roughshod over the wishes of the majority. A.S.T.M.S. represents one half of these employees and we want fresh negotiations to produce a salary structure with realistic levels at all grades, levels which will attract and retain staff at all levels.
This is an urgent matter and we want the Secretary of State to meet us, but in the meantime we ask that he should withhold his approval until a settlement more suitable to all employees is agreed. At a time when doctors in the National Health Service, with very few exceptions, have received substantial increases—I have mentioned this before and I do not object to the relative affluence of the British doctor—and when there is no great complaint, financially at any rate, emanating from the medical profession, it is ludicrous and shameful that the branch of the service which sustains not only the day-to-day investigations which are necessary but those which make possible the much more sophisticated techniques of modern medicine on which health and general well-being of the community so depend should be so shabbily treated.
Pathology, Haematology, biochemistry, histology, bacteriology are all investigations which need the skill of the medical laboratory technician and it is about time that we paid him adequately for this skill.
7.30 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): Perhaps I may start by congratulating the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvingrove (Dr. Miller) on exercising his self-denying ordinance in the matter of forgoing the U.C.S. debate and on his successful outcome in persevering, after a protracted night, through to an eloquent morning. I ask him to forgive me if, in speaking to him privately beforehand, I in any sense introduced doubt into his mind about what he should do, but I thought it better to report to him completely the situation, being uncertain how the night would work out. All's well that ends well, at least in this respect.
As the hon. Member has made clear in this short debate, the salaries of the groups of individuals of whom we are talking—the medical laboratory technicians—are negotiated by the Professional and Technical (B) Whitley Council, which is also responsible for the terms and conditions of service of other National Health Service technicians. The management side is representative of hospital management boards and management committees, and the staff side comprises several unions. The hon. Member listed them.
Under the constitution of the Whitley Council, the composition of each side is a matter for them alone. The staff side of the relevant committee of the Whitley Council consists of representatives of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, the National Association of Local Government Officers, the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees, which the hon. Member described as C.O.H.S.E.
The negotiations which led up to the settlement which is now, unfortunately, under dispute first began, I understand, as early as February, 1970, when the staff side of the Whitley Council put forward a pay claim for a 25 per cent. increase. In June last year, the Council reached agreement on a salary increase of 15 per cent. with effect from 1st April, 1970, subject to any further adjustment which might be justified by the results of a detailed review of comparisons which had been made some years previously of the responsibilities and pay of medical laboratory technicians and com-
508
parable workers in Government scientific establishments.
In June this year, following lengthy negotiations, the two sides of the Council agreed on the adjustments to be made to salaries and grading. These added retrospectively a further 3 per cent. from 1st April, 1970, to the 15 per cent. already agreed, making a total of 18 per cent. overall. I want to make it clear that it was not a 1971 salary settlement which was in question but a modification of a settlement going back to as early as April 1970.
In the National Health Service, students train in service on a good salary whilst studying to obtain the higher national certificate they require to become a medical laboratory technician. They receive £537 at age 16, rising to £660 at the age of 18 if they have the appropriate intermediate qualification, and £1,062 if aged 25 or over. Immediately on qualification, normally at the age of 20 or 21, a technician will automatically receive £1,131 or £21·75 per week rising to a maximum of £1,830 in the basic grade.
The hon. Member has mentioned £1,830 as a salary which might be paid after 12 years. Most technicians, however, will have been promoted from technician and will be earning well into the £2,000-a-year bracket by the time they have completed 12 years' service. After two years, many technicians will be earning £1,359, or £26 a week. Earnings are often higher than this since many technicians often undertake emergency work at night or at weekends. Most technicians can expect to be chief technicians by their early thirties on a salary scale from £2,148 to £2,610. The maximum salary of the class received by a principal medical laboratory technician is £3,465.
After the Whitley Council agreement had been recorded and accepted by the Secretary of State, representations were made by the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs to the effect that they had not voted with the rest of the staff side in favour of the settlement, that in their view the number of seats they had on the staff side did not match the number of their members compared with the other unions, and that therefore the Secretary of State should withdraw his approval of the settlement so that negotiations would continue.

509
As I have explained, neither I nor the management side of the Whitley Council have any locus in determining or influencing the composition of the staff side. Indeed no records are kept by management of the unions to which individual members of their staff belong. This has been an integral feature of the constitution of the Whitley Councils since they were established. Ever since 1948 representation on the staff sides has been a matter which the unions concerned have resolved for themselves in an orderly and constitutional manner. It is regrettable now that patients should be inconvenienced because a union sees fit to draw public attention to the question of their representation in the Whitley Council.
My Department, although given no formal advance notice of the proposed strike on 22nd July, asked hospital authorities for reports of any incidents of withdrawal of labour and its effect on patient care. The reports we have received so far indicate that the strike action had widely varying effects in different parts of the country.
Dr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Secretary of State has no authority to withhold his agreement? If he has authority to give agreement if it is necessary for his agreement to be given under the terms, surely he has authority also to withhold his agreement? In circumstances in which half of the employees are represented by one union with a smaller number of representatives in the negotiating structure, surely that is one of the occasions on which the Secretary of State could use his discretion, and at least lot us discuss the matter.
Mr. Alison: As I was trying to explain, this is precisely the field in which, constitutionally and technically, my right hon. Friend cannot take official cognisance of what goes on, because these are strictly matters for the members of the staff side to determine amongst themselves. I cannot on behalf of my right hon. Friend enter in any way into a dispute which might be occurring on the staff side. It would not be proper for my right hon. Friend to exercise discretion in a dispute in which he has no proper part at all.
To return to what I was saying, it seems that in the majority of hospital groups normal or near normal working was maintained, although there were some
510
hospital groups where only emergency services were provided, and normal work had to be postponed. One cannot be certain that postponement of normal work would have no adverse effect but at least the results do not appear to have been serious.
I trust the question of union representation now will be pursued constitutionally. In the meantime, I have authorised hospitals to implement this settlement which has been properly reached in accordance with the constitution of the Whitley Council and which, although high in comparison with settlements being reached elsewhere, represents in my view a reasonable resolution of the outstanding issues of last year's general pay agreement.

E.E.C. WHITE PAPER (SHORT VERSION)
7.39 a.m.
Mr. John Mendelson: I ought to do the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs the courtesy of bidding the time of the morning to you, Mr. Speaker, to the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) and, last but not least, to the gentleman who guards our proceedings from beyond the Bar of the House, because the Under-Secretary has been away from the Chamber for only a moment, as many of us might have been, and is already, I see, on his way back. Therefore, I assure the Minister that he has missed nothing of the case I hope to put to him.
The matter I wish to raise is of considerable constitutional importance. I shall have to adduce a fair amount of evidence and a number of supporting reasons to buttress my main case. I tried to raise the matter on an earlier occasion, as soon as the large-scale circulation of this Government pamphlet started. I have since had correspondence from people wholly unknown to me, including some whose political leanings I am in no position to judge. One, writing from Birmingham, told me that he has also written to the Leader of the House. I do not represent Birmingham, nor have I any particular influence there. Birmingham is not known to be represented by people opposed to our entry into the Common Market. This gentleman says

511
that it is because he regards it as a matter of considerable constitutional importance that he has written to the Leader of the House, pointing out to him that he completely missed the point when I tried to raise the matter on an earlier occasion. He ends by saying:
"Would you continue on this as soon as you can, because it is of very great importance?"
That is one of the reasons that moved me to seek to raise the matter in this debate.
I very much regret the absence of the Leader of the House. I am not raising a Foreign Office policy matter; there are other occasions for that. I want to put on record my profound disapproval of the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. I have only kindly feelings for the Minister, as I think I showed only a few minutes ago, and as he has known over the years. I always welcome his presence, and I would have been pleased to see him sitting next to the Leader of the House, perhaps holding his hand intellectually and whispering in his ear occasionally. But the right hon. Gentleman's absence is a grave constitutional act of negligence, which I will raise again when the House is rather more fully attended on another suitable occasion. I know that I shall have the support of other hon. Members when I do.
The absence of the Leader of the House, who is responsible for Government propaganda and for co-ordination of arrangements for publications such as we are considering, is regrettable. I told him of my view the other day when the Prime Minister was sitting next to him. Therefore, it is not a new point that I am trying to make. It is clear that he was very much concerned. The matter was raised with him not only by me from the back benches but by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who speaks for at least half the country, and, if Bromsgrove is anything to go by, for well over half the country. It is a serious dereliction of duty, no matter what the hour, for the Leader of the House not to be in his place to reply to this debate.
My second point concerns the Government's generally shifty attitude on the matter. They have evaded every opportunity to engage in debate on the subject. They have made no effort to give a full and detailed explanation on what is re-
512
garded, as I shall seek to prove from independent sources, as a grave departure from our normal constitutional procedure.
I now submit my main case. I believe it is unlawful for the Government to have engaged in the distribution of a political propaganda pamphlet through Her Majesty's Post Office. I believe it is against the decisive precedents, some of which were rehearsed the other day by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not want to weary the House by repeating them, but the Minister will have been briefed on the matter and will know the precedents to which I refer. But beyond that I believe that this pamphlet is quite different in kind from all the pamphlets and Government publications which were debated the other day between the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Treasury Bench. I wish to indicate the difference I have in mind by talking about categories of Government publications.
There is the very large category of publications on our welfare schemes, which includes information about the entitlement of ordinary people. I dare say that, with safety regulations and the implementation of various Home Office Acts, announcements on welfare schemes form the bulk of Government publications. These can never be a matter of dispute because the intention is very simple, namely, to bring home to the citizen something which Parliament has decided, for which the money has been voted by this House which cannot be voted by any other authority. Therefore, naturally, publications to bring to the notice of individuals things to which they are entitled form a large category of Government publications.
Then there are publications on what I call safety and security regulations dealing with poisonous drugs, and so on. They are an absolute necessity and cannot form, except in individual cases when medical opinion may differ, a subject for controversy. All these Government publications are published in ordinary garb and their drafting is left to people in the Departments concerned. I dare say that Departments or Ministers call in a public relations officer or two to change the language to make it more lively, although I have no great taste for the language normally used by public relations specialists. I much prefer the

513
more staid language of the members of the Civil Service. But if the Government want to liven it up a bit and in fact do so, nobody utters any dissent.
The pamphlet which I am talking about, "Britain and Europe: A short version of the Government's White Paper" says under the headline "The Historic Decision" on page 2, "A Message from the Prime Minister". He is the kind of public relations officer not normally called in by a Government Department to write a preface to a Government publication. It is a rather unusual course for a Government Department to take. The message from the Prime Minister is a propaganda statement made in terms he is quite entitled to use both as head of the Government and as leader of the Conservative Party. The only difference is that he should pay for it himself. He must find the financial resources to pay for it.
I say seriously that there will be other major occasions on which senior Cabinet Ministers, including the Prime Minister, who have been responsible for this departure from our traditions, will be held financially responsible for what they have done. I have no doubt that this will be the outcome of what will be a very big case of great constitutional importance.
The Prime Minister, talking of the shortened version of the White Paper, says in that preface:
"Finally, it explains why the Government firmly believes that the terms for British entry into the European Community are fair and reasonable."
That is a highly partisan point of view. Anybody who has listened in this House to the Common Market four-day debate will have heard the opinions of those fortunate enough to be called. And if they know a little about the opinions of those who sat here throughout the debate and were not fortunate enough to be called and who hope to speak in October, they will know that many hon. Members hold diametrically contrary views to that expressed in that preface by the Prime Minister. Nobody can disagree with that statement of fact.
We do not know what will be the figures in any vote in this House. We read reports of arm-twisting, of secret messages and of corridor interviews with Whips—and probably scorpions as well.
514
It is no good the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) shaking his head. I do not expect him to confide in me what he thinks about his own Members. The Party to which I belong was in Government for six years, so I know a little about the kind of work the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends do in Government. He will not persuade me that what I am saying is not true.
A great battle is taking place at the moment for the minds and feet of hon. Members to direct them into the kind of Lobby the hon. Gentleman wants to see them enter. He has no certainty about the number of Conservative Members he will be able to dragoon into the Lobby in support of the Prime Minister's preface. Hon. Members on his own side, to my certain knowledge, have not yet finally made up their minds. He cannot contradict any point I have made.
This political process is being gone through with great seriousness and the entire political career of many hon. Members is at stake. I do not say this lightly because there is news this morning in the Press of the resignation of one Member on this important issue of entry into the Common Market, into which the propagandists are trying to lead us. If I am not right about that resignation, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or his colleague will deny the story.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I wished to say a word about his earlier point before he left the subject of Whips. Having spent three years in the Conservative Whips' Office, I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the way in which his party Whips contact him and his experience of them with the way in which the Whips of the Conservative Party behave.
Mr. Mendelson: That is the most barefaced statement that I have heard in the whole of my time in this House. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know, I was not referring to my own experience. My own Whips have always treated me with great politeness. But, of course, not every hon. Member has been here as long as I have, and younger Members sometimes get different treatment.

515
The decision which has to be taken by hon. Members in all parts of the House is quite unprecedented in the history of this House. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman says is without foundation. There is a great deal of arm-twisting. People are concerned about their political futures. It is a highly controversial matter.
The other day, over the heads of right hon. and hon. Members opposite, the Prime Minister appealed to the assembled agents, chairmen and vice-chairmen of Conservative Associations. It is well known that the right hon. Gentleman is preparing a vote on a three-line Whip, and using every means to get some constituency chairmen to put pressure on individual Members.
Press publicity has been given to a case in which a Member was told by his constituency chairman that, if he addressed people attending a garden fête organised by the local Conservative Association, he must keep off the Common Market. One might well talk about playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. How can a Conservative Member of Parliament address a meeting of his political supporters today without saying a word about the Common Market? Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be laughed out of court if they carry on like this.
The country will say that the Government are spending large sums of public money on propaganda, when their own Members are muzzled by their party bigwigs and prevented from referring to the subject if they happen to be called upon to address a Conservative fete. The more the hon. Gentleman keeps quiet and the less he provokes me into giving further details, the better it will be for his party.
I return to the main subject, not without some regret, because the matter to which I have just referred is also of some importance. In his preface, under the heading, "The historic decision", the Prime Minister is using public money to try to sell what is now a strictly partisan political case to which no approval has been given by the House of Commons. He is using money which has never been voted by this House for the purpose.
That brings me to my second main point. It is established constitutional doctrine that only this House can grant
516
supply. Down the ages, the House has always been jealous about what is done once supply has been granted. We know that more than one grave constitutional crisis has arisen over the misuse of money granted for one purpose and used for an altogether different purpose. This has always been regarded as exclusively a matter for the concern of those who grant and control supply.
A Government which acts unconstitutionally and unlawfully in this respect acts unconstitutionally and unlawfully on a matter on which the House of Commons has been built up. From a recently published book by an authority on the House of Commons in the eighteenth century, what clearly emerges, if nothing else does, is that it has always been held that, even when the other place had a share in deciding financial matters, the decisive power rested finally with the House of Commons.
When we take constituents round the House of Commons we usually take them to one of the genuinely oldest parts in Westminster Hall where, in 1397, a Parliament sat. We have knowledge of that Parliament, because one of our finest historians in the last 70 years, Professor Helen Cam, of Cambridge University, wrote a paper on it. Fragments of what a Member used to report to his constituents, having come away from that Parliament, have been preserved. The two most important points in that early tradition are supply and grievances. That is how it all started, that is how it has continued, and we are now on supply.
If it were thought for a moment that this was a matter which concerned only Members of Parliament, who, after all, are politically committed to one view or another, I would call in aid an opinion published in the Daily Telegraph of 20th July, 1971, which the Minister, or those who brief him, must have seen. That newspaper is not known as a supporter of many of the causes which I normally support, except that both the editor and I are against sin. Beyond that, I think that there are few causes on which we agree.
The Daily Telegraph has the great journalistic advantage of often publishing in its columns things which contradict what it says in its leading articles.

517
That is a sign of good journalism. However much I disagree with its leading articles, I find that newspaper, as a newspaper, indispensable.
I first tried to raise this matter on Monday, 19th July. On the next day, 20th July, the Daily Telegraph published this article, which I want to read into the record of the House of Commons. Under the headline,
"Government limits on its publicity",
it states:
"Sir Fife Clark, Director-General of the Central Office of Information since 1954 under three Governments, has probably the most authoritative judgment to offer on whether or not the Government are 'off side' in publishing a free popular guide on Europe before Parliament passes the terms.
The subject provoked another storm in the House yesterday. Sir Fife, of course, can hardly be expected to comment as a public servant. But last year, expecting to retire at the end of 1970, he wrote a book in the new Whitehall series about the Central Office of Information."
I come to the most important part of the quotation:
"Accepting, he says, that the Government has a duty to undertake campaigns for public information, a line must be drawn between advocacy and factual presentation. In practice, deliberate informational activities paid for out of public funds cannot be carried out in an atmosphere of prolonged controversy …"
He goes on to state a basic Central Office of Information convention:
"It is that while legislation is in progress no money is spent on publicity material; but as soon as a new scheme has become the law of the land … the Government has a duty to make its details widely known."
That ends the quotation from Sir Fife Clark. The Daily Telegraph puts in this concluding line:
"On that, strictly, C.O.I. find H.M.S.O. out of bounds."
That is a mild sporting way of putting it. It is what I prefer to call unlawful action and unlawful expenditure of public money for party political propaganda purposes by the Government—by the executive. Many battles have been fought on the very question of the rights of the executive without authority to spend such public money.
I come to the third main point of my submission in which I want to put a few precise questions to the Government. Although the Leader of the House, who ought to have been in his place and
518
whose duty it is to reply to this debate, is not in his place, I hope that the Under-Secretary has been given answers to these questions.
Mr. Anthony Royle: I have the utmost admiration for the hon. Member, but I regret his intemperate attacks upon my right hon. Friend the Lord President. My right hon. Friend is, indeed, as the hon. Gentleman said, responsible for the coordination of Government information policy, but he has asked me to reply, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sponsors the funds involved. Therefore, we are involved and it is perfectly proper that I should be here this morning.
Mr. Mendelson: I am making no personal or intemperate attack upon the Lord President. I am making the constitutional point that, although I would have found it perfectly normal for the hon. Gentleman, as a Foreign Office Minister, to sit next to the Lord President, the man responsible for the coordination of Government information policy is the Lord President, and in a case of this importance it was his duty, having been involved in the controversy, to be in his place to answer the debate.
I fully accept that in Adjournment debates matters such as road blocks in constituencies, which are matters of just as great importance to those who live in the street concerned as is this matter, are delegated by the senior departmental Minister to one of his junior Ministers. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing a decision made by the Lord President with his authority which has not been made by the Under-Secretary, because he has no authority to take such a decision. The matter has been handed down to him; it has been decided somewhere else. It is a matter of Cabinet consideration. I put on record again my profound complaint that the Lord President is not in his place to answer the debate. It is a dereliction of duty of a most serious kind.
I return to the questions that I wish to put to the Minister. I hope that he has the answers. If he has not, it will underline my point that the Lord President should have been here. First, several sums of money have been mentioned in the Press. I want an accurate Government statement today in reply to the debate as to the sums involved. The

519
sum of £800,000 has been mentioned as already having been committed by the Government for this purpose and it has further been suggested in reputable publications that £2 million is about to be spent between now and 28th October. I want the Minister to say what these sums are, how much has already been spent, and how much public money is being committed between now and 28th October.
The Government have said they do not like the state of public opinion over entry into the E.E.C. and therefore they are going to reverse public opinion. Any Government or political party is entitled to do that. It was the Opposition's view that we did not like the trend of public opinion on 18th June, 1970 so we have set to work to reverse that trend. But we are spending our own money on it. We do not have all that much but we spend what we can.
We won the Bromsgrove by-election—a safe Conservative seat. We are eagerly waiting to go into Macclesfield, which is being deprived of parliamentary representation because the Government are afraid they will lose it as they lost Bromsgrove. It will be interpreted as an adverse vote on the Prime Minister's proposal to enter the E.E.C. The Prime Minister does not wish to hold a referendum, and I agree with him. I support a General Election because people have to be heard before the final decision, but the Prime Minister does not agree with that idea. Here is a golden opportunity to consult a section of the electorate who are, if recent years are anything to go by, mostly Conservative inclined.
The Prime Minister has no intention of submitting his views to the electorate at Macclesfield but he is expecting the Post Office employees there to distribute his party political propaganda. It is an unlawful act which should be stopped.
If it were once to be accepted that before the House of Commons had given its approval, in contradiction of the convention outlined by Sir Fife Clark, the Government have a right to proceed to a political propaganda campaign and use public money, then we might be on a most dangerous road. This is twice so because of the grave importance of the issue involved. Members of the executive
520
will be able to claim, on matters equally political but not as important as entry of the Common Market—virtually no matters in the years to come will be as important, so the field is wide—that this Government got away with it, so the door is open to any other Government.
If I were not so much of a constitutionalist or so much concerned that the democratic process should not be interfered with, I might look forward to wonderful days in future. My hon. Friends will be in power and we may wish to proceed—I will urge this upon them—with the public ownership of the insurance companies and the control of a great deal of our national investment. Taking the precedent of the Minister's conduct, that Socialist Government would be able to print ten million pamphlets making the case long before it had been approved by the House of Commons, giving a lurid picture of nefarious restricting influence of privately-owned insurance companies on investment, making a partisan political case—and they could have it distributed freely to everyone by means of civil servants, employees of the Post Office. I await with great interest the views which would then be expressed by hon. Members opposite in Yorkshire, where there are some very eloquent Conservative Members.
We should be perfectly entitled to do it, but I hope that we shall not, because I hope that we shall be able to stop the present Government from pursuing this course. That is far more important. That is why this correspondent, who gives no indication of political party, has written to me that the Lord President did not see the point. This is far more serious and important than any political proposals which either party might produce. What is involved is the belief of the ordinary citizen in the propriety of our political processes. This is all the more so at a time when many people are already gravely doubtful about the procedure that the Government are adopting on the main issue.
In a Gallup Poll the other day, people were asked two questions. To the first— "Are you in favour of Great Britain joining the Common Market?" —57 per cent. said that they were opposed. To the second, "But what do you believe will actually happen?"—87 per cent. said, "We shall go in anyhow," It is a

521
very dangerous state of affairs that 87 per cent. of the people in the foremost Parliamentary democracy in the world should be convinced that, no matter what the views of the majority, the Government, somehow or other, decide for them. Many people already have grave doubts about how this process is being conducted.
This is not simply an argument between pro-and anti-Marketeers. There was a special feature article in The Scotsman yesterday morning. The writer of that article, a feature article, says that there seems to be no possible way of consulting the electorate. I disagree with his conclusions, but there is a newspaper basically in favour of what the Government propose to do yet coming to that conclusion.
What the Government are doing now twice aggravates the offence. While there are already as many as 87 per cent. of the people convinced that, no matter what their views, they will not be able to take part effectively in the decision-making, the Government are using public money in a vast publicity campaign to push their own case. Plainly, those who are concerned beyond this particular decision for our Parliamentary institutions have grave cause for concern. As has been said on both sides—the Prime Minister has said it himself more than once—to take the British people into this new institution without their willing support would in itself be a grave offence against democracy and would endanger the whole enterprise on which the Government are engaged. To use the time between now and 28th October, when a decision has to be made, to spend large sums of Government money on a one-sided argument aggravates the offence twice over.
If the Government persist in their present course, they are in duty bound to offer equal facilities and equal money to those who take a contrary view. This is one reason why I want to know what the sums of money are, and I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give the House and the country accurate figures. In the absence of such facilities afforded to those who take a contrary view, there is only one honourable course for the Government to take. If the hon. Gentleman cannot do it today—this is one of the reasons why I regret the
522
absence of the Lord President of the Council—then this afternoon or tomorrow the Government should announce that they have stopped the operation until further consideration, that they accept the authoritative view of Sir Fife Clark and others who have spoken on the matter with their experience and knowledge, and that they bow to the opinion expressed throughout the country by pro-Marketeers as well as anti-Marketeers that they have been acting wrongly and unlawfully.
If the Government are not prepared to make such an announcement, I promise them that all my right hon. and hon. Friends, together with a great many people in the country, will not leave the matter there. We shall call the Government to account again and again, so that the nation may clearly understand what they are doing, and that they are doing it in the teeth of determined opposition from this side of the House.
8.23 a.m.
Miss Joan Hall: In response to the remarks of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) about Conservative Whips, I can only say that I have always received courtesy and consideration from the Conservative Whips, just as I have, of course, from the Chair.
There are a number of us on this side who do not feel altogether happy about the precedent which has been set in the matter of the pamphlet because, from now on, the situation will be somewhat different. I can well understand those who are strongly in favour of the Common Market taking one view, and those who are strongly opposed to our entry taking another. But a number of us find ourselves in something of a dilemma. I am full of admiration for those who have strong views on the subject one way or the other.
In being in a dilemma I am in good company. Like a great many people I am in favour of the Common Market economically speaking but am not at all happy about it politically speaking. Those of us in this situation have been subjected to a certain amount of abuse and sarcasm from those who have decided views. It should be remembered that ours is a position representing that of a large number of people. One of the problems in talking about the Common Market is allying it to the daily lives of those whom we represent.

523
The two situations are often somewhat different. Figures have been quoted by those in favour and those against about the Common Market until I have become statistically drunk. Figures have lost meaning. Good as they may be, the time has come when we should say "No more."
Talking of pamphlets, I am not sure that we should not have a pamphlet on the Treaty of Rome. Having looked at that Treaty in some detail I have to say that I find it difficult to understand. When I put my signature to something I like to know what it is I am signing, and I cannot feel happy about putting my signature to the Treaty of Rome. No doubt a legally trained person would understand it a little better, but it is very difficult for the ordinary layman to follow.
There has been this talk about our being "Europeans". I am not quite sure what a European looks like or feels like. When I go overseas I carry a British passport and I usually get on a great deal better with someone who speaks my own language and with whom I have a common background. Geographically speaking, we are within the European orbit so I presume that we are Europeans. This question is a red herring.
A number of people talk about the long-term advantages and short-term disadvantages of joining the Market. In saying that there are short-term disadvantages, Market supporters are saying to a lot of people, "Sorry, chum, you have had it." The Chancellor talked about pensioners being protected, but this is not enough. We want something much more concrete for these elderly people in the community who have often suffered over the years. It is to them that we owe the fact that we live in a comparatively free, happy and prosperous nation. As to the long-term advantages, it is often said by those in favour of joining that they are so long term that they are difficult to quantify.
Again, this is not good enough for me, I want a little more detail. I want to know what I am in for in the short and long term. There must be some short-term advantages and we should know more about them. It must be borne in mind that something which is large is not automatically the best. Distance does not always lend enchantment to the view.
524
I know that in my part of the West Riding, although communications are today much easier, London appears to be further away and more difficult to reach. The seat of power seems to have less consideration for those in the provinces than ever before. I hope that the question of a Parliament in Europe will not remove it further from us than is the case with Westminster.
When I spoke about being——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is getting very general. This is a debate on a rather specific issue.
Miss Hall: I am sorry. I will try to return to the specific question. The right hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. Shore) mentioned a tariff barrier of 7½ per cent. not being important. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here, because I should have liked to tell him that there is a great difference between a tariff barrier of 7½ per cent. and a tariff barrier of 0 per cent., for it is the difference between having a market because one is competitive and having no market at all because one cannot sell competitively, and a tariff barrier of 7½ per cent. is therefore a great disadvantage to this country, as is any tariff barrier anywhere.
The Common Market will plainly have to have a European Parliament. A number of people have expressed better than I can the problems of electing a European Parliament and deciding for what it will be responsible and for what Westminster will be responsible. We have had far too much vagueness about this, and we ought to have much more detail. The pamphlet says very little about the responsibilities of a European Parliament and nothing about the civil servants.
If there is one thing that will be important in the Common Market it is the British civil servants who will be representing the interests of this country. It has been said that our civil servants will be Eurocrats, but we are told that the French are no less French for being in the Common Market, and I hope that the civil servants who represent this country will be more pro-British than anybody else has ever been, because if they are not prepared to look after our interests, we are sunk. I hope that they will be the most fanatically pro-British of any civil servants.

525
Those of us who are not happy about the political aspects of the Common Market have these doubts. I hope that my hon. Friend will explain why the pamphlet says so little about these matters and that he will be able to set our minds at rest.
8.32 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I should like to say how glad I am to see the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) at this early hour of the day. He is one of the more active and more articulate of one's colleagues in the House and it is always interesting to hear his views, even if it is so seldom that I am able to agree with him. He has raised an important issue and I am glad of the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Government. For the second time this morning, I must take issue with the hon. Member about his attacks on my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. The Votes referred to are the main Supply Estimates, which is why I am replying to the debate.
The hon. Member has quoted at length from a gentleman called Sir Fife Clark. I should like to quote from Fife Clark's book on the C.O.I.:
"For administrative purposes it is responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Treasury Ministers deal in Parliament with any questions about finance, staffing, efficiency. But the Ministers whose departments it serves take responsibility for the work carried out on their behalf and answer for this in Parliament."
That is why I am answering this debate—because of the specific nature of this forum. I know that the hon. Member knows that and I absolutely accept that in what he says he is not throwing darts at me. However, I should like to get that on the record and I am sure that he appreciates that it is right that I should.
I should like to say how much I appreciated the few remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall). She cheers us all up in the early morning by being here and we are always glad to hear her. Many of us will remember her very good maiden speech. Although I cannot answer in detail all the issues she raised, many were covered by the debate which we have been having for the last several
526
days in the House, and I am sure that she will therefore forgive me.
Much of what the hon. Member for Penistone said has been covered in question and answer in the House over the last few weeks, but I should like to run over one or two points again and to try to answer some of the questions which he put to me. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) was also to have introduced this subject, but he is not in his place this morning, a matter of regret to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. This subject covered almost the whole spectrum of official publications. It would not be profitable to deal with the matter on so wide a front this morning. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman made it plain that he did not wish to cover the very wide spectrum. On the narrow front exposed in the hon. Gentleman's speech, however, I would like to make the following few remarks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned specifically the publications issued in connection with Britain's application to join the European Communities. He particularly mentioned the short version of the Government's White Paper. There have been issued not only the short version of the Government's White Paper but also the factsheets. The present Government, like their predecessors in 1962 and 1967, have issued free throughout the country the leaflets known as factsheets. Their purpose is purely informative. The House may also like to recall that booklets on Britain and the European Communities were also issued for sale by previous Governments.
I would like to say a few words about the short version of the White Paper. Before deciding to embark on the production of information publications in connection with the Common Market negotiations, the Government naturally considered previous instances. Some were from the time of previous Administrations when it had been found necessary to make available information on important public issues, and from these cases the Government concluded that there was ample justification from past practice.
The ample justification was, first, for giving the country clearly and simply the information which has been in wide

527
demand. The hon. Member will, I think, admit that there has been a wide demand for information from the general public on the application to enter the E.E.C. The second justification was for reporting the outcome of the negotiations which were initiated by a decision supported by an overwhelming majority of the House of Commons. Just over five million copies have been distributed, mainly to post offices. Their stock has had to be doubled during the past fortnight because of public demand.
Among the many cases considered by the Government as having a bearing on the question of precedents were the following, which I would like to repeat. The first is a free pamphlet in wallchart form called "Upswing". This was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council when answering questions following his statement in the House on 19th July. It was one of a series published by the Department of Economic Affairs and sent to industrial firms, trade unions and other recipients in July, 1967, following publication of the Government's statement on application to the European Economic Communities, Cmnd. 3345. It is an attractive and well-designed document.
A second precedent for a short version is the White Paper on Fuel Policy, Cmnd. 3438, published in November, 1967, of which 240,000 copies were given free to the National Coal Board for distribution within the industry, and a short version of the Geddes Report on the shipbuilding industry, Cmnd. 2937, published in March, 1966. Altogether, 100,000 copies were sent to all those in the shipbuilding industry. The Shipbuilding Industry Act was enacted in June, 1967.
Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman talks about giving information, he has not dealt with the paragraph from the Prime Minister's preface which I have quoted and which is purely political propaganda. It says that the Government firmly believe that the terms of British entry into the E.E.C. are fair and reasonable; but the House has not yet decided that. Being a reasonable man, how can the hon. Gentleman compare 240,000 leaflets on a subject such as he has described with the distribution of 10 million of these propaganda leaflets?
Mr. Royle: I will come presently to the point about the introduction by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if the hon. Member will allow me to make my speech in the way I intend. As for comparison, while we would all agree that the shipbuilding industry is vitally important to the country, I think the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that the application to join the E.E.C. is of even greater importance.
In addition to those I have mentioned, between 1950 and 1967—and this is very important, and has not been brought out before—Budget posters were issued annually as soon as possible after Budget day and before the passing of the Finance Bill. Copies were made available for display in post offices, and were sent to local authorities, industry, educational institutions and political parties. I underline those dates—between 1950 and 1967. I have some copies of the posters here.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister's introductory message for the short version of the White Paper. It seems to me and to Her Majesty's Government that it is perfectly natural that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should contribute an introductory message to it. His endorsement of the terms simply echoes the conclusions contained in the White Paper itself to which he himself referred in his statement to the House on 7th July introducing the White Paper.
I should like now to make a few observations on the conventions. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly said that I would prefer to call them conventions—there are no rules. First, however, I would like to answer his other main question, which was on costing. The total cost of the present programme, including present plans, would amount to £647,550. This figure includes a sum of £191,000 for the production and distribution of the short version of the White Paper. This is the present situation. There are no plans at present for further initiatives. I think that that statement covers the hon. Gentleman's question. Any detailed breaking down of what we are spending he can get from the various replies, which have been published in HANSARD.
Mr. John Mendelson: Is the Minister now, on behalf of the Government, giving the House and the country an assurance that no further money, beyond this

529
£647,000 already committed, will be spent between now and 28th October on further pamphlets or any type of Government propaganda in favour of one partisan case?
Mr. Royle: I think that I made the position quite plain, but I will repeat what I have said, because it is important, and worth repeating. The total cost of the present programme, including present plans, would amount to £647,550, including £191,000 for production and distribution of the short version of the White Paper. There are no plans at present for further initiatives. I do not think I can go further than that at the moment.
We feel that the convention which has generally been observed since the early 'fifties, though it has not invariably been the case, as I have already indicated, was broadly set out in two publications, "The Government Explains", by the Royal Institute of Public Administration, and the Whitehall book on the Central Office of Information. This convention amounts to the following: if legislation is not in progress, or immediately in prospect, a short version of the White Paper may be made available to the public.
It is perhaps worth repeating that there have been only 5½ million copies of the short edition of the White Paper—not the five to ten million implied by the hon. Gentleman. The decision taken by the Government was based on past practice, but it also took account of the exceptional circumstances—wide, longstanding and continuing demand by the public for information on the subject, and the need to report on the outcome of the negotiations which were initiated by the previous Government and were supported by a massive majority of this House.
Mr. John Mendelson: Does the hon. Gentleman reject the case made by Sir Fife Clark, which I read into the record of the House, or does he accept it?
Mr. Royle: I cannot make any comment, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would expect me to make comment, on a report in a newspaper, which is what the hon. Gentleman read out.

DISABLED PERSONS (ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE)
8.45 a.m.
Mr. Dick Taverne: I want to raise briefly a matter of some importance that is entirely different from the last issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson). It concerns the administration of the constant attendance allowance, the introduction of which was seen by hon. Members on both sides as a much-needed measure. At the same time, I think it was realised by many of us that there were difficulties about defining those who were to be helped, and that inevitably many people would be disappointed when they found that the allowance did not come to them because their circumstances, however sympathetically viewed by anyone else, did not qualify under the tests laid down.
But a case has arisen in my constituency which suggests that the allowance provisions are being given an interpretation so narrow as to have become an absurdity. I have written to the Minister giving the facts of the case, which I shall briefly outline to the House now. It concerns a Mrs. Crickmore, the wife of a fireman. She suffers from multiple sclerosis, and her condition has gradually worsened over the years. Her husband has looked after her for over 25 years. She is now quite unable to help herself, and needs constant attendance. I have seen her, and all she can do is move around with difficulty in her wheelchair. For everything else she needs help—to get up in the morning; to get washed and dressed; for cooking, eating, drinking, and medical attention; to clean her house; and to read. Someone else has to open the newspaper for her. The one thing she can do without turning over the page is the Daily Telegraph crossword, which is laid out in front of her. She needs help for the wireless to be turned on or off, and, although she can lift up the telephone, she cannot reach it before it ceases ringing, because of the difficulties of getting there in her wheel chair, and she cannot dial.
She receives assistance from a district nurse and a voluntary help, and, above all, from neighbours, while her husband is at work. She is blessed with very helpful neighbours, to whom I pay tribute.

531
There are lilting machines to help her get into bed, her husband has arranged for a hoist to help her get into their car, and the Multiple Sclerosis Society is helping to provide her with a constant alarm system at night.
This seems to me to be obviously a case of someone needing constant attendance. The only time Mrs. Crickmore does not need it is when she is asleep, and there must be very few people who are never awake. If ever there was someone who would appear to come within the definition of the need, she is such a person.
When I discussed the case with her husband previously I said that at least she would be helped when the constant attendance allowance came into operation. It would not be anything like enough compensation for all the expense which her husband had incurred, but at any rate I thought that there would be some compensation. We then learnt that the allowance had been refused. This was a bombshell not only to her husband and her doctor but to me, because I never envisaged that the provision could be so narrowly drawn that such cases would be excluded. Her doctor says that she is right at the top of the list of disabled and that if she were more disabled she would be a hospital case. So I cannot understand why the allowance has been refused. There is no appeal except on a matter of law. There is provision for a review if there has been a mistake of fact, ignorance of material facts or a change of circumstances.
I thought it important to raise this matter in the House because it puts a question mark over the whole scheme. I ask the Minister how many people have applied for the allowance; how many people are likely to be helped by the allowance; and what are the criteria under which a case like this can be refused assistance?
8.50 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) for raising this matter and for his persistence throughout the night in order to be able to do so. I will deal first with the general questions he asked and then say
532
something about the case to which he referred.
This is a new allowance. Incidentally, it is called the attendance allowance as opposed to the constant attendance allowance, which is somewhat different and which exists in the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes. This is a new venture in dealing with the disabled. It has been supported by both sides of the House, and I think it can be fairly said that the preceding Government and the present Government are joint authors because a great deal of the preparatory work was done by the previous Administration.
We regard this as a very hopeful first step in providing more help for those who are badly disabled, the civilian disabled, than is now available. We have estimated—it can be no more than an estimate—that up to 50,000 of the most severely disabled people will be drawing £4.80 a week from December on top of any other benefits to which they may be entitled. Therefore, for the first time the disabled people outside the War Pensions and Industrial Injuries Schemes will be getting a benefit of their own. I emphasise that this allowance is a start. We hope that, having felt our way and having dealt with the most severely disabled, we shall, in the light of experience gained, be able to extend the allowance.
What are the criteria on which the allowances are based? There are two mainly. The first—and here I quote from the Act—is that a person must be
"so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires from another person, in connection with his bodily functions, frequent attention throughout the day and prolonged or repeated attention during the night."
However, this requirement, clearly would not cover all severely disabled people, particularly the mentally disabled. As a consequence, an alternative requirement is that a person must be
"so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires continual supervision from another person in order to avoid substantial danger to himself or others".
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked how many people and what sort of people are likely to qualify. The sort of people expected to qualify correspond approximately with those described in the inquiry carried out on behalf of the Department and others by the Social

533
Survey Division of the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys as falling in the two top categories of most disabled people. The results of the inquiry were published in "Handicapped and Impaired in Great Britain." The survey suggested that there were 24,000 such people over the age of 16 living at home. To these have been added children from the age of two and adults living in residential accommodation—possibly up to 50,000 people in all.
There would, however, be severely disabled people needing a lot of help by day who would not qualify. Some would require some help at night, but not enough to satisfy the requirements of the Act. We have been working on the basis that up to twice as many people might claim—100,000 in all. So far—and I emphasise that these are early days and the allowance does not come into payment until December—there have been some 30,000 claims, and the process of assessing them is in its early stages. Therefore, it is not possible for me to give the House any relevant figures of the number of successful claims that we are likely to have by December of this year.
I come to the way in which the procedure is working on the initial work by the patient's general practitioner and the way in which the Attendance Allowance Board itself is proceeding. The Act provides for the medical requirements to be decided by the Attendance Allowance Board set up under the Act. The Act provides for up to 10 members; at present there are eight members, including one lay member. A board of this size could not cope with all the claims expected in the six months which we have allowed to deal with them before the first payments go out in the week commencing 6th December. The Act gives the board power to delegate its functions in individual cases to medical practitioners.
The board has appointed as delegates medical officers of the Department and medical practitioners experienced in war pensions and industrial injuries boarding work. It is not possible for these doctors to see the claimants, and, in general, they rely on a report given on a comprehensive report form by the disabled person's doctor. Where the board or the board's delegates are not satisfied that
534
the requirements of the Act are met the insurance officer has no alternative but to disallow the claim.
I come to what follows from that, and this is directly relevant to the personal case raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The claimant's right to apply for a review or to appeal are set out on the notice of disallowance sent to him. Against the insurance officer's decision there is a formal right of appeal to a local tribunal, but the tribunal has no power to award an attendance allowance where the board is not satisfied that the medical requirements of the Act are met. There is no right of appeal on the medical issues themselves.
A board consisting of the best qualified people, medical and lay, having been set up, it would not be possible to appoint a higher tribunal. However—this is the significant point—there is a wide-ranging right of application for a review. The Act provides for review on the grounds, usual with benefits of the National Insurance Act, of relevant change of circumstances, or ignorance of a material fact, or mistake as to a material fact. Additionally, however, the board may review on any ground—for example, mistake as to law or error of judgment—within three months of the original determination.
Mrs. Crickmore was advised of her right to apply for a review and we assume that she wishes to do so. She will be visited as soon as possible by a doctor, not her own, and she and her husband will have the opportunity to make their observations to him. Her case will then be re-submitted to the board. If the board is unable to make a decision in her favour, copies of all the documents will be sent to her and she and her husband and other representatives will have the opportunity to make further observations upon them before the board makes its determination. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate therefore, that it would not be right for me, now that this case is being reviewed by the board, to comment further on it.
In this short debate, I hope that I have been able in the first place to reassure the hon. and learned Gentleman about the working of the new allowance. Equally, I hope that I have been able to assure him that the case of Mrs. Crick-more, for whom and for whose family we

535
all have the utmost sympathy, is being examined with care and sympathy.
Mr. John Biffen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We learned from the "tape" last evening that, in the view of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we are now engaged in "open war" in Belfast. I wonder whether any indication has been given to you that our proceedings should be allowed to continue in order that we might debate the issue which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wishes to raise.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: No such indication has been given me.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Pym)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division—
Mr. JASPER MORE and Mr. HUGH ROSSI were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I now have Tellers——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Tellers' names must be put in before the Question is put a second time. So the Ayes have it.
Question put accordingly and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Committee this day.

TRAFFIC, DORRINGTON
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. More.]
9.3 a.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: It is not the most exhilarating of exercises to make the same speech on the same
536
subject in this House, even when it is made two Parliaments later to two different Ministers in two different Governments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), who I am glad to see present, could probably discuss this subject with much greater authority than I, were he not bound by the Whip's vow of silence.
Perhaps the best way in which I can start the debate is by repeating my opening remarks in the debate on 9th March, 1966, when I last raised this matter. On that occasion, I said:
"The matter that I want to discuss, and about which I have been in correspondence with the Minister, is the events surrounding the traffic problem of a village called Dorrington, about 6½ miles outside Shrewsbury and in the centre of my constituency. It has a population of about 300, and it is on the main Shrewsbury-Hereford route. The village is at present in the process of dying It has been condemned to death by the traffic on the roads today. It is traffic, and nothing else, that is doing this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th March. 1966; Vol. 725, c. 2353.]
I lived in this village for a period. I left because I had two children and, in my view, it was a miracle that serious accidents had not occurred. The traffic was bad in 1965 and 1966, but it is infinitely worse today.
When I last raised this matter in the House, the late Mr. Stephen Swingler, then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, said that the Government intended that the road should be widened to 24 ft. and that the speed limit, which was openly being ignored, should be enforced.
It is worth looking at what has happened. The road has certainly been widened. On the speed limit I have recently been told—I am not altogether sure that I understand what it means—that the 85 percentile speed of cars is now up to 38 miles per hour. I take that to mean that the average speed of 85 per cent. of the cars using this road is 38 miles per hour. I am not talking here about a few Minis passing through the village at 38 miles per hour; I am talking about enormous lorries which pass through the village day and night. I do not want to exaggerate, but "thundering" is the only way I can describe how they go through the village.
As to the road widening, Mr. Swingler said that, in many ways this would be

537
counter-productive to what I was trying to achieve. My information from local people is that the situation now is a great deal worse as a result of the road widening. One resident has told me that what he calls three "bumps" a day take place in the village. There are skid marks all over the road, and there is one on the pavement. Incidents, if one can use that word, are occurring constantly.
I have not visited the village for about two weeks, but my latest information is that on 3rd July there was an incident involving a child. Statistics are often quoted which suggests that the accident rate is so-and-so, but many of these "accidents" are not reported. I doubt whether that particular incident, to which I have a witness, would ever reach my hon. Friend's Department.
Other matters include a bridge on the south side of the village. The walls of that bridge are regularly knocked down and have to be replaced. Hedges in and near the village are frequently mown down.
I now turn to Mr. Swingler's second point, which concerned the 85 percentile speed of 38 miles per hour. This figure was arrived at from inquiries instituted in a recent review. The result of the review was that traffic passing through the village was ignoring the speed limit and travelling at 38 miles per hour.
What do the Government do? They do not enforce the speed limit, which is what Mr. Swingler undertook would be done. They turn over in their minds whether they will raise the speed limit to 40 m.p.h., the implication being that if people ignore the speed limit at 30 m.p.h., by raising it to 40 m.p.h. they will then be two miles per hour within it. It is a strange doctrine and is based on a fallacy, because everybody knows that the only result of raising the limit to 40 miles per hour would be that everybody would go through the village at between 45 and 48 m.p.h.
The village is suffering terribly from this traffic problem. It is cut in two because of the increase in traffic, much worse than was the case in 1966. Most of the children live on the opposite side of the road from the school which they must attend. That is an extraordinary indictment of planners.
538
I should like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to promise four things. First, I want him to tell me that any idea of raising the speed limit to 40 m.p.h. will be scrapped. Second, it would help if the word "slow" were to be written on the road at the approaches to the village. Third, I want an undertaking that the speed limit will now be enforced. Fourth, I want him to give me a date for a bypass. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow will support me in saying that there has been talk of a bypass for the best part of a quarter of a century. Nothing has been done, although much money has been spent on alterations. I was about to describe them as "minor" alterations, but they are more than that. All the alterations have achieved exactly the opposite of what is necessary to preserve the life of the village.
In an age in which society is increasingly conscious of the value of preserving amenity and of the dangers of environmental pollution, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has an opportunity to show that he means business. I hope that he will give me the four undertakings for which I have asked.
It has taken me 26 years in the House to get the Adjournment at the end of the Consolidated Fund Bill.
9.12 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) has indeed done his duty by his constituents in bringing this matter frequently before the attention of the House and to the attention of successive Governments. He, very properly on behalf of his constituents, wants to see progress.
I have carefully noted the points my hon. Friend has made. I will particularly bear in mind and look carefully into what he has said about skid marks, about the number of bumps which it is alleged occur, and about the incidents, one of them involving a child.
On strictly transport grounds I cannot hold out very much hope for my hon. Friend. Only on environmental grounds can I at best open a slight but still only a very slight, chink of light, and even that on the far horizon. I say this at the beginning so that there shall be no

539
misunderstanding about the main tenor of my remarks.
I have had the opportunity of reading my hon. Friend's previous remarks, some of which he referred to. I have also seen the correspondence he has been having with my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Development.
I will briefly recapitulate the position. The main road through Dorrington village is a trunk road. Therefore, my Department is the responsible highway authority. Both sides of the road are developed for approximately one-third of a mile, and in consequence there is a very wide mixture of traffic—local and through vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians. Improvements to the road were undertaken some years ago following the undertaking given to the House, when a 24-ft. carriageway with a 6-ft. wide footpath was put in through almost all of the village. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend knows, at the southern end of Dorrington it proved impossible to widen the footway or the carriageway without knocking down a lot of property. I know he rightly opposed that but it meant that at this point there was a pinch in the road because it was not practicable to extend the 24-ft. carriageway all the way.
Traffic passing through the village is now subject to a 30 m.p.h. limit which it is the statutory duty of the West Mercia police authority to enforce. Following a request by my Department in accordance with our general national policy on these matters, a review has been undertaken of speed limits throughout the county. It is being concentrated where road improvements have been carried out in order to relate the speed limit to the condition of the road. The review stems from the experience that motorists are less inclined to comply with unrealistically low speed limits than they are to comply with limits which seem to them to be reasonable and realistic.
Retention of unrealistically low limits puts the whole system into disrepute. All of us here have a split personality on this. When we are behind the wheel we go at a prudent, realistic speed. We are disinclined to take notice of speed limits which seem unrealistically low. But when we are pedestrians, particularly in our own villages or constituencies, we take a much more restrictive view of speeds and
540
wish to see the motor car slowed down to an extent that, if we were behind the wheel, we would consider unreasonable in the circumstances.
There have to be some national criteria therefore. As a result of the review Salop County Council has recommended that the speed limit in Dorrington should be raised from 30 m.p.h. to 40 m.p.h. It and my Department consider this is in accord with the criteria laid down in spite of the "pinch point" at the southern approach to the village.
The West Mercia police authority supports the county council in this conclusion. It believes that the 40 m.p.h. limit would be much more enforceable than the old limit and that an enforceable limit is of a greater safety factor than one which is unenforceable. It is only fair to say that the proposal is opposed by the Condover Parish Council and the Atcham Rural District Council. In his last letter my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State indicated that he would reach a conclusion on this proposed increase as soon as possible. We have therefore been giving most careful consideration to the proposal and to the opposition to it.
I will explain the criteria that we have applied in order to frame a judgment. We have considered the type of road involved. It does not on any national comparison justify a speed limit lower than 40 m.p.h. Indeed, it might justify a higher limit than that. The pinch point is a special factor, but on the highway considerations there is no case for speed limits below 40 m.p.h.
The second criterion that we applied, again in accordance with our national policy, concerns the speed at which the majority of vehicles now travel along this stretch of road. The standard that we set, on the basis of great experience, is the 85 per centile points rule—the speed below which 85 per cent. of motorists travel. This concept is a rough and ready guide to what is reasonable and realistic and shows the level at which the police will be able to enforce a speed restriction on the 15 per cent. who are travelling dangerously fast.
This concept has been built up by wide experience. Indeed, raising many unrealistic and ill-observed limits from 30 miles an hour to 40, far from resulting in an appreciable increase in speed, often leads

541
to a reduction in accidents. It is supremely important from the point of view of public respect for speed limits that they should be realistic and sensible. Only then will they continue to command, and indeed deserve, respect from the motoring public. All our measurements in Dorrington show that the 85 percentile point speed is well over 30 miles an hour. My hon. Friend himself mentioned 38 miles an hour. These grounds justify the raising of the limit.
We have also examined the other basic criterion, the accident rate. I appreciate that hon. Members may complain that the accident rate is a difficult measure to go by, because in a sense one must wait for something awful to happen before the statistics rise to the level at which it would be justified, but there must be national criteria, which must apply in Dorrington as well as anywhere else.
In Dorrington, I am glad to say, the accident rate is very low. It works out at 1·3 per million vehicle miles, which compares very well with the national criterion that we normally apply for 30 m.p.h. limits—namely, four accidents per million vehicle miles. On these grounds, one could not justify a limit of only 30 miles an hour.
So on all the grounds I have mentioned the evidence seems to us to be conclusive. We have therefore decided that the proposal—I emphasise that it is a proposal—to raise the limit to 40 m.p.h. should be advertised within the next four weeks. This does not mean that the limit will be raised tomorrow or in the next four weeks. It means that the proposal will be advertised and that any objections received will be considered very carefully before a decision is made. My hon. Friend's views this morning will certainly be considered with the greatest care.
I have considered the position of the pinch point at the southern end of the village, because this is something that occurs in different parts of the country. I will ask the divisional road engineer to examine this point and see whether, whatever is done about the speed limit, some indication might be given of a point of potential danger. I do not want to give an absolutely firm undertaking on this, but in view of what my hon. Friend has said, and in view of what I know of that pinch, we will carefully examine this possibility.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: This means, I take it, that there is no question of knocking down the house on one side or the shop on the other in order to make the road wider and increase the speed.
Mr. Griffiths: This is the dilemma, of course. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is that there is no intention of doing that, but, obviously, if there is a constriction at one point, and if the speed limit were to be raised, it may be that some indication of possible danger at that point ought to be given. But I am giving no undertaking here. I am saying only that we shall look at it.
I come now to the long-term possibilities and the question of a bypass. Following the issue of the 1970 White Paper, "Roads for the Future", a White Paper of the previous Administration, a study was put in hand of the Hereford—Shrewsbury length of the A49 to see what required to be done to bring this route up to ultimate dual two-lane standards, the results have turned out to be rather disappointing from my hon. Friend's point of view. They show that a dual carriageway for this stretch between Hereford and Shrewsbury would yield an extremely low rate of economic return on the investment. This is a national measure, and it works out here at something between 8 and 9 per cent., which is much lower than the economic return which we normally expect when agreeing to go to dual carriageway standards. On this basis, I must tell my hon. Friend that any claim for improvement of this road to dual carriageway standards, when seen in the context of other priorities and the limited funds available, must be regarded as, at best, a very long-term possibility.
I can, however, offer one small chink of light in the gloom, though it is a very small chink. This arises from the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last month of a major expansion of the roads programme, which, I am glad to say, includes funds for a special study not simply of the Hereford-Shrewsbury route but, quite rightly, I believe, of the whole length of the A49 between Ross-on-Wye and Whit-church, including the smaller stretch in the middle.
This study will for the first time allow consideration to be given not only to

543
the economic return, as was the case before, but to environmental improvements, a point which my right hon. Friend has rightly stressed in his policy. The environmental improvements would be measured by the gain to the quality of life through the diversion of long-distance traffic, and heavy goods vehicles in particular, away from towns and villages. This is a new way of looking at this type of problem.
Another helpful aspect of my right hon. Friend's new arrangements is that improvements need not be put off till the dual-carriageway standard is justified. In the past, it has been necessary to find justification for dual carriageway before any work of this sort was put in hand. Henceforward, it will be enough if relief can be obtained by providing high-standard single carriageways initially, with by-passes and lengths of dual carriageway to come in as and when necessary. So it will be sufficient to meet a somewhat lower criterion if the environmental gain is substantial.
I must not raise my hon. Friend's hopes too high. It is too soon to say
544
precisely what decisions will be taken about the route of the A49 through Dorrington, but I assure him that there will be no undue delay in putting this study announced by my right hon. Friend in hand and acting on any recommendations made in regard to the environment and on the single carriageway question.
I realise that my hon. Friend will find my reply disappointing. He may well think that progress is too slow. But I ask him to bear in mind that, with the many calls on our limited resources, the selection of improvement schemes must be based on priorities which take account of national requirements. It is, therefore, for this study, newly put in hand, to prove Dorrington's case. The case which my hon. Friend put this morning has been powerfully argued. I undertake that we shall consider most carefully the objections to the raising of the speed limit before any final decision is made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Nine o'clock a.m.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Central Office of Information
  Central Office of Information
  Britain and Europe (Distribution)
  Britain and Europe (Distribution)
  Prices
  Prices
  Capital Levy
  Capital Levy
  Royal Mint (Trade Union)
  Royal Mint (Trade Union)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  White Papers (Circulation to the Public)
  White Papers (Circulation to the Public)
  Paper Currencies (Value)
  Paper Currencies (Value)
  Prices and Tax Reductions
  Prices and Tax Reductions
  Pay and Taxation
  Pay and Taxation
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  Mortgage Interest (Tax Relief)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  £ Sterling (Purchasing Power)
  Investment
  Investment
  Bastardy Fund, Scotland
  Bastardy Fund, Scotland
  Cube Cutting
  Cube Cutting
  Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act
  Industrial Assurance and Friendly Societies Act
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospitals (Fire Precautions)
  Hospitals (Fire Precautions)
  Richmond Clinic, Twickenham
  Richmond Clinic, Twickenham
  Clinical Investigation (Ethics)
  Clinical Investigation (Ethics)
  Abortion Clinics (Blood Supplies)
  Abortion Clinics (Blood Supplies)
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
ENVIRONMENT
  Motorway Construction (Top Soil)
  Motorway Construction (Top Soil)
  Land Commission Sites
  Land Commission Sites
  Bolton (Proposed Metropolitan District)
  Bolton (Proposed Metropolitan District)
  Coastal Pollution (Waste Disposal)
  Coastal Pollution (Waste Disposal)
  Plastic Containers (Disposal)
  Plastic Containers (Disposal)
  Building Land
  Building Land
  Chester Outer Ring Road
  Chester Outer Ring Road
  South West Economic Planning Council (Chairman)
  South West Economic Planning Council (Chairman)
  Parcels Traffic
  Parcels Traffic
  National Bus Company's Subsidiaries (Employees)
  National Bus Company's Subsidiaries (Employees)
  Motoring Offences (Disqualifications)
  Motoring Offences (Disqualifications)
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Building Research Station (Projects)
  Building Research Station (Projects)
  Construction Research
  Construction Research
  Construction Research Advisory Council
  Construction Research Advisory Council
  Construction Industry
  Construction Industry
  Compulsory Acquisition
  Compulsory Acquisition
  Construction Research Advisory Council
  Construction Research Advisory Council
  Fixed-Price Tendering
  Fixed-Price Tendering
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Direct-Labour Building
  Direct-Labour Building
  Domestic Garages
  Domestic Garages
  Rents
  Rents
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Northern Region (Industrial Development)
  Northern Region (Industrial Development)
  Product Support (Graphics) Limited
  Product Support (Graphics) Limited
  Airports (Development)
  Airports (Development)
  INFORMATION SERVICES (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  INFORMATION SERVICES (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)
  MR. GEOFFREY WILLIAMS
  MR. GEOFFREY WILLIAMS
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
  NOTTINGHAMSHIRE
  SWITZERLAND
  SWITZERLAND
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  IMMIGRATION BILL
  IMMIGRATION BILL
  CORNWALL
  CORNWALL
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EFFICIENCY)
  GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EFFICIENCY)
  BRUSSELS
  BRUSSELS
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
CIVIL SERVICE
  Administrative, Scientific and Professional Classes
  Administrative, Scientific and Professional Classes
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Leavers (Doncaster)
  School Leavers (Doncaster)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Immigrant Pupils
  Immigrant Pupils
  Imperial Chemical Industries Fibres Limited
  Imperial Chemical Industries Fibres Limited
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Aliens (Local Government Elections)
  Aliens (Local Government Elections)
  Outstanding Fines
  Outstanding Fines
SCOTLAND
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, 1970
  Artificial Limbs
  Artificial Limbs
  Monkland Canal
  Monkland Canal
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
WALES
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Hospitals (Public Works Programme)
  Hospitals (Public Works Programme)
  Regional Policies
  Regional Policies
  Bagcar, Port Talbot (Footbridge)
  Bagcar, Port Talbot (Footbridge)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock: The Lord CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

PROPOSED OVERSEAS DIPLOMATIC ESTATES BOARD
LORD SHERFIELD: 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 now considered the recommendation of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation to set up an Overseas Diplomatic Estates Board, and, if so, with what result.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, as my honourable friend the Joint Parliamentary Under-Secretary said in a Written Answer in another place on June 30, the Duncan Committee's recommendation has been the subject of a detailed report by officials which is now under consideration by Ministers. It is hoped that an announcement will be made very shortly.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Marquess for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that it is now almost exactly two years to this day that the Duncan Committee reported and said that this was an important recommendation which should be dealt with as a matter of urgency?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am well aware of that fact, and that is why I am pleased to be able to inform the noble lord and the House that an announcement will be made in the very near future.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am not quite certain what the noble Marquess means by "the very near future ". Is
180
the noble Marquess aware that the reply he has given to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is the one that I gave, I think some 19 months ago? Can the noble Marquess help us by saying what he means by the "near future"? Does he mean this Session, next Session, or the Session after?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I certainly do not mean next Session or the Session after. I mean what I said: in the very near future.

TURNHOUSE AIRPORT
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are confident that the timetable of 1974 as the date for completion of the new runway at Turnhouse Airport will be fulfilled.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the provision of the new runway at Turnhouse is subject to planning permission and land purchase, and while these make it impossible to forecast a precise date, it is hoped that if the necessary consents are obtained the runway will be completed in 1974.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether the Government believe that an inquiry will be necessary as the result of local objection? And if there is to be an inquiry, will he give an assurance that the planning inquiry will be held at the minimum time allowed under the Statutory Regulations?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, all the objections have come in and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has directed the local authorities to refer them to him. In the light of all these, he is making up his mind whether a public inquiry should be held. Whether such an inquiry is held or not, my right honourable friend is certainly aware of the urgency of the situation.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to expedite his decision, in view of the urgency of the requirement of a runway at Turnhouse?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly convey to my right honourable friend what the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, has said.

EXPORTS: ADVISORY SERVICES AND NATIONAL COUNCIL
2.10 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: 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, in view of the decision to wind up the British National Export Council by the end of 1971, and its consequent present run-down—

(a) whether they will make a statement concerning the formation and structure of the proposed British Export Board;

(b) from whom should export assistance be sought in the interim period.]

THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALEYN): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced in answer to a Parliamentary Question on May 11 that he had decided to integrate the various export promotion services at present provided by the British National Export Council and the Department of Trade and Industry into a single organisation under a British Export Board. Since then lie and my right honourable friend the Minister for Trade have been having discussions about the implementation of this decision with representatives of the British National Export Council and of other organisations of British industry including the Trades Union Congress. My right honourable friend intends to discuss these matters with the Chairman of the new Board, who has yet to be designated, before an announcement is made about the detailed arrangements for the Board. In the meantime the existing organisation will continue with current work, and export assistance should continue to be sought from the Department of Trade and Industry and from the British National Export Council.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that
182
detailed Answer, but may I ask whether he can clarify the position a little further? I understand that there is considerable disquiet still at the moment among British businessmen and also among certain representatives in London of overseas Governments; for instance, if they wish to see a British trade mission come to their country they are not quite certain from whom they should seek guidance in this matter. Can my noble friend say to whom they should go in the case, for instance, of a mission of mixed composition?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, they should certainly go to the British National Export Council for the rest of this year, and if by any chance the British National Export Council is not able to deal with the matter, then they should go to the Department of Trade and Industry.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two supplementary questions? First, would it not have been wise, before taking the rather sudden decision to disband the British National Export Council, to have some preformed ideas as to the composition of the new body which was to take over from it? Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government aware that they stand in great danger of losing the support of up to 200 British industrialists who put a great deal of their professional time at the disposal of firms exporting, and that this delay is increasing the likelihood of the loss of this support?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, Her Majesty's Government had an idea of what the composition would be in the sense of what the structure of the Board should be, but not of the individuals who would compose it at the time they made the decision. With regard to the second supplementary question, the meetings that my right honourable friends have had in the past week should have gone a long way towards allaying any misgivings that there may have been.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say when it is expected that the Export Board will be set up, and what will be its constitution?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I announced previously, the Board will

183
consist of businessmen. It will have a businessman as chairman; it is likely to have about ten members, and the president of the Board, who will sit as and when he judges necessary, will be the Minister for Trade.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there is a cycle of operations within the country which is not carried out merely by businessmen-Why have the Government confined themselves principally to business people instead of taking the membership of such a board from a wider field in the country?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer is quite simple: it is because it is an executive Board. The Board itself will be wholly responsible for the provision of these services, and in those circumstances it is appropriate that it should be a board of businessmen.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, will not the noble Lord give further consideration to this suggestion, in that the Board will be stronger if it has a leading trade unionist on it, whether it be executive or not? Is he aware that my noble friend Lord Douglass of Cleveland, like myself, has ma de representations, and will he again consider the structure?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this was one of the matters that was discussed last week with Mr. Feather, and I can assure the noble Lord that there is every intention that the Export Board and the Trades Union Congress should work in the closest partnership in this matter. But it does not necessarily follow that it would be appropriate for a trade union representative to be on the Board, because, of course, the Board does not consist of representatives.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, as the noble Lord has mentioned Mr. Feather, the General Secretary of the T.U.C., may I ask him whether he has agreed in consultations that the trade unions have no interest in such a body?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Quite the contrary, my Lords. That is why I have said that the Trades Union Congress and the Board will be in the closest touch. I understand that the consultation that my right honourable, friend had with Mr.
184
Feather was quite satisfactory to both parties; but the Government's mind is not closed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what he means by "businessmen"? Does it include industrialists over the whole field or is it limited to bankers and entrepreneurs?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it will be both industrialists and traders.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, if I may follow up that question, there was an implication in the noble Lord's reply that the T.U.C. was satisfied not to be represented on the body but only to be consulted. Am I right in thinking that such was the implication in the reply given by the noble Lord?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. It is difficult to say, not having been present myself, whether the T.U.C. was satisfied on this matter or not, but I believe that an understanding was reached.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, if I may, I should like a more direct answer than that, because on the last occasion when I raised this question the noble Lord said that he would consult the Minister concerned with respect to trade union representation. My curiosity is now aroused when the noble Lord implies that the T.U.C. is satisfied not to be represented on this body, and I should like to know whether this is the fact or merely a supposition?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wrote to the noble Lord, and I think I have given the best answer that I can give to him. I understand that Mr. Feather fully appreciated the Government's concept of what the Board should be and that it was well understood that the two bodies, the Trades Union Congress and the Export Board, will work very closely together. There was no decision taken that there should be a trade union representative on the Board.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Lord think that this boycotting and snubbing of 8 million organised trade unionists is in keeping with the Prime Minister's proposal that one nation should be created and not two separate nations?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think the answer to that is quite simply, "Yes". Perhaps I ought to add that I do not accept that there has been any snub in this matter whatsoever.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it would not be possible to invite a leading trade unionist in a non-representative capacity to serve on the Board?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords. As I have said, the Government's mind is not closed on this matter and the membership of the Board has not yet been decided upon.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, in the light of the reply given by the noble Lord a further question comes to mind. As this is to be an executive Board it will be different from the British National Exports Council, which was not executive. Will the executive powers include powers to instruct manufacturers? If not, how can they be executive?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, because it is executive in relation to the service to individual exporters, the provision of export intelligence, the general publicity effort at home and overseas, the scheme for assistance at trade fairs and British weeks and the Mission scheme, so I do not think it involves directions.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is not one executive authority in any of those phrases he read out? They are all advisory, and if they are all advisory, how can it be an executive body?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is an executive body because it directs the whole range of export promotion activities.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, I must ask this question. The powers of this Board are no different from the British National Export Council; if they are different I want to know in what direction they are different, and I have a right to know.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the British National Export Council has
186
full power over missions; it has not full power over export intelligence, and it has not full power over the help of various kinds arranged by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, to exporters. All this will now be combined under the new Board.

BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.
TORBAY CORPORATION (No. 2) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed and returned to the Commons.

HUMBER BRIDGE BILL
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, could the Promoters of this Bill give us a little more information about the Humber Bridge? I understand that it is to cost between £7 and £8 million. If it is to cost more, where is the money coming from? May we also be informed of what traffic is likely to use the Bridge if a toll is going to be charged and so on?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, all these matters were dealt with when this Bill was referred by your Lordships to the Unopposed Bills Committee of this House, and it would be difficult for me, at this stage of the Bill and without any notice, to reply to the questions which the noble Lord has asked.
On Question, Bill read 3a.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Bill passed.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
2.23 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill 134 as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–37]
Clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager "
Clause 3, page 3, line 38, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 1, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 2, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 7, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 12, leave out "a master" and insert "an installation manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave our first "masters" and insert "managers"
Clause 4, page 4, line 16, leave out second "masters" and insert "managers"
Clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out "masters" and insert "managers"
Clause 4, page 4, line 21, leave out "masters" and insert "managers"
Clause 4, page 4, line 24, leave out "a master" and insert "an installation manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 30, leave out "a master" and insert "an installation manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 43, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 4, line 44, after "installation" insert "or to an installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 1, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 8, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 10, after second "or" insert "where connected with safety, health or welfare"
Clause 4, page 5, line 17, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 19, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 21, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 28, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 29, leave out "a master" and insert "an installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 38, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 43, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 46, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, page 6, line 4, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 6, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 8, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager"
Clause 4, page 5, line 22, leave out "master" and insert "manager"
Clause 8, page 9, line 2, leave out from "concerning" to "in" in line 3, and insert "aircraft on or".
Clause 8, page 9, line 6, at end insert "and shall apply to the doing of anything in relation to any aircraft by any person, irrespective of nationality or, in the case of a body corporate, of the law under which it was incorporated".
Clause 10, page 10, line 1, at beginning insert "Subject to the provisions of this section,"
Clause 10, page 10, line 8, at end insert—
"or

(c) any offence under section 5 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 (discharge of oil), or

(d) any offence committed on or as respects an aircraft which is not a British aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, being an offence created by virtue of section 8(4) of this Act.

(2) An offence shall not be one within subsection (1) above if it is an offence under, or under any provision having effect under—

(a) the Merchant Shipping Acts 1894 to 1970, or any enactment to be construed as one with the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, or

(b) the Customs and Excise Act 1952, or any enactment to be construed as one with that Act, or

(c) the Oil in Navigable Waters Acts 1955 to 1971, or any enactment to be construed as one with the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1955, or

(d) except where it is created by virtue of section 8(4) of this Act, the Civil Aviation Acts 1949 to 1968, or any enactment to be construed as one with the Civil Aviation Act 1949."

Clause 10, page 10, line 15, at end insert—
" Provided that this subsection shall not apply to an offence if prosecution of that offence in England and Wales requires the consent of the Attorney General ".
Clause 12, page 11, line 30, leave out "master" and insert "installation manager".
In the Schedule, page 14, line 26, at beginning insert—
".—(1) Limits on hours of employment in any specified operation or in any specified circumstances.
(2) "
In the Schedule, page 14, line 29, leave out "and discipline".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. There appears a fairly formidable list of Amendments to this Bill from another place, but in fact they are technical Amendments and in no way alter the substance of the Bill. I thought, therefore, it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if I were briefly to explain the purpose of these Amendments by speaking to them all on the first Amendment and then, if your Lordships agree, move that the Amendments be taken en bloc.
My Lords, Amendments Nos. 1 to 29 and 35 and 37 are designed to do two things: first, to change the title "master" to "installation manager"; and secondly, to make it clearer that the powers of the installation manager in connection with order and discipline are restricted solely to matters of safety, health and welfare as specified in Clause 5 of the Bill. The reason for the change in title is that it was considered in another place that "manager" would be more appropriate for the person in charge of safety on board installations engaged in the industrial activity of mineral working. The responsibility and authority given to him in the Bill is unchanged. Under the provisions of Clause 5, as clarified by the Amendments now proposed, the manager will have in relation to his installation general responsibility for matters affecting safety, health or welfare or, where connected with safety, health or welfare, the maintenance of order and discipline. For the discharge of that responsibility he is to exercise authority over all persons in or about the installation, who must obey his orders given in exercise of that authority. If it is necessary in the interests of safety, he may put a person ashore, or confine him prior to putting him ashore, on condition that he gives due notice to the appropriate authority in the United Kingdom. He must not permit the installation to be used in such a way as to endanger its seaworthiness or stability, and he will have power to take special action to meet or avoid an emergency.
Amendments Nos. 30 to 34 and 36 are technical alterations which simply clarify and adjust certain provisions without in any way affecting the intentions of the Bill.
190
My Lords, these Amendments do not alter the primary objects of the Bill at all. I hope that your Lordships will agree that they are entirely reasonable and are an improvement by way of clarification of the Bill. With the approval of your Lordships, therefore, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 37.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Earl Ferrers.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there is one point that arises from this series of Amendments on which perhaps the noble Earl might enlighten the House. In our discussions on earlier stages of the Bill there arose the question not only of the master but of his deputy, the fear being that whereas the master might be qualified to perform all these functions it was also necessary for him to have a qualified deputy, should he be removed by accident or for some other reason. Can the noble Earl tell the House whether the installation manager's deputy will have proper qualifications and proper powers?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the object is that there should be a manager with adequate powers and that there should be a deputy manager with adequate powers. But I would draw this distinction, that the deputy has no powers while the manager is on board; it is merely in circumstances where, for one reason or another, a manager is removed, that the person so described as a deputy will then fulfil the functions of the manager.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl can reassure me on one point. On Second Reading I raised the question of the skills of seamanship that were to be held by the master, as he was then called, because although the installation is fixed on the sea bed nevertheless it is subject to the hazards of the sea. Indeed, an Amendment which added potentially to the qualifications of the master was accepted by the Government. The change to the name "manager" takes the emphasis away from seamanship. Secondly, I wonder whether the noble Earl can assure me, and perhaps some other interested Members of the House, whether any steps

191
are to be taken under the regulations that the Government are to make, to ensure that some experience of the sea is available when managers are chosen to take control of these installations?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the change in the name was made in another place merely because it was thought that the term "installation manager" would be more appropriate. It does not detract at all from the functions of the master (as he was then called) under the Bill. Anyone who is given the job of an installation manager will only be given that job if he has suitable and adequate knowledge of seaworthiness. I think that the main reason why the Amendment was made was possibly because it was considered that "master" had too much of an affiliation with seamanship and not sufficient affiliation with industrial processes. But I think I can assure the noble Lord that his fears are met.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House to remind his noble friends that, much as we welcome their replies, they must actually ask the leave of the House to speak twice except on a Committee stage?
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that one is rather pleased that the Government have thought it advisable to delete the word "master" and to put in "manager"? After all, the Bill itself comes under the title of Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Bill. It deals with minerals, and we are rather more accustomed inside industry to the managerial set up than the set up under the term "master". I do not know whether the noble Earl can help me on this point, but in view of what he said in regard to discipline I am concerned as to what form of conciliation machinery, if any, operates within this process for which the manager will be responsible?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not know whether I have the leave of the House, and I apologise for not having requested it before. I am not sure that I would not have preferred it not
192
to have been given. I am afraid I did not understand the noble Lord's question entirely. I think he asked about the form of conciliation machinery; but I did not understand in regard to whom the conciliation was to be.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, I asked about conciliation because of the statement of the noble Earl, to the effect that the manager shall be responsible for discipline. I should like to know, discipline of whom? Is it discipline for the people under his care and supervision? If anything goes wrong, what door is open to the people he has to discipline, and what forms of negotiation may have to take place to settle a dispute?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I have leave to speak again? The answer to the noble Lord's point is, that under this Bill the installation manager is responsible. He has certain duties under Clause 5, which he has to undertake. Those duties are with regard to safety, health and welfare. Only if those specific areas of his responsibilities are affected by questions of discipline will he have the right to such discipline as is necessary to ensure that his responsibilities are carried out.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 22) Bill read 3a, and passed.

ANGUILLA BILL
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Future administration of Anguilla]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved as an Amendment to the clause:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert (" provided that such provision is made in agreement with representatives of the people of Anguilla ")
The noble Lord said: I do not propose to delay the Committee on this Bill, or the proceedings of the House. In its terms, this Bill is the most Colonialist Bill that I have seen in over thirty years. It gives absolute power to the Government and absolute power to the Commission. I know that that is not its intention and its purpose, and I am aware that the Anguilla Council has endorsed the proposals which are made. What I am asking in this Amendment is that this agreement with the Anguilla Council shall actually be included in the terms of the Bill. The Minister has given us an assurance to this effect, and I hope that he may be able to accept this Amendment. If he is not able to accept it, may I ask him in reply to emphasise the assurance which he previously gave, and to consider whether it might not be possible to have an exchange of communications with the Anguilla Council so that the matter might be doubly sure. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for the brevity with which he introduced his Amendment, and I think all your Lordships understand the motives behind it. As I think he suspects,
194
I am not able to accept the Amendment, but I should like briefly to tell him the reasons why. The Anguillan Council have endorsed not only the Bill before your Lordships to-day but also the principles of the Order in Council which we propose to make under it if it is approved by your Lordships' House.
We have proceeded in all this, as I think the noble Lord knows, with the full agreement of the Anguillans, and we have fully honoured the assurance given by the previous Government, and reaffirmed by us, that we would not place the Anguillans under an Administration they did not want. We entirely agree that it is essential to proceed with the consent of the Anguillans. One of the principles set out in the proposed Order in Council is that the Commissioner should proceed in co-operation and consultation with the members of the Anguillan Council. My right honourable friend the Minister of State has been in close and continuous touch with the Anguillans regarding the type of administration which would be established after the Bill becomes law.
I would assure your Lordships, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that the Anguillans both endorse and welcome the terms of the Bill which is before your Lordships to-day. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel that this reassurance satisfies him, and that he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD BROCKWAY: I will not pretend that I am satisfied, but I am pleased, and, because I do not want to delay the Bill, I thank the Minister for that assurance and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining Clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 22), Bill read 3a, and passed.

UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
2.40 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Carrington, on behalf of the Earl Jellicoe; namely, That this House takes note of the White Paper, The United Kingdom and the European Communities (Cmnd. 4715).
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, we are now on the second day of what we are told is an exploratory debate. What are we exploring, with what object in view and with what result? The result today is relatively easy to define. There has been one doubter (the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd), three speakers adverse to entry (the noble Lord, Lord Granville of Eye, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones) and 31 speakers of unqualified assent, with of course different degrees of enthusiasm but with a remarkable unanimity of purpose. My noble friend Lord Carrington, in opening the debate yesterday, said that he doubted whether anything new could be said. I think he was right in those doubts. But there is value in unanimity of testimony upon a question of this historic importance and, speaking for myself, I am glad for the virtual unanimity of testimony which has gone forth from your Lordships' House on the first day of this debate.
If our object had been to help make up our minds or to make up one another's minds, the debate would have been a waste of time. Never in the history of Parliamentary debate have so many people been anxious to make up the minds of so few. Only the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is waiting until October—at any rate so far. But I do not think that that is the purpose of this debate. The purpose of this debate in both Houses of Parliament is not that we in Parliament should make up our own minds or one another's; it is, I believe, that we should help to focus and guide opinion in the country. That is what Parliament—in my judgment, at least—is for. It is the duty of Members of Parliament in both Houses to speak their minds—to use the phrase of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, to stand up
196
and be counted—on an occasion of this kind, to give guidance and leadership to the people of this country.
This is what makes—and I say it without rancour and without hostility, but in the spirit used by my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft in his speech yesterday—the spectacle of internecine strife in the front ranks of the main Opposition Party so particularly painful. And this is what makes the speech of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and the speeches elsewhere of Mr. Roy Jenkins, Mr. George Thomson and Mr. Michael Stewart so particularly helpful. When the Labour Government applied for membership and began the negotiations, the Conservative Party was under a Three-Line Whip to support them. We do not ask that much now that we are proposing to go in, but I beg only that they should not persecute one another. Let them not punish their pro-Marketeers or turn this into a Party battle. I hope it will not be so.
Of course the Government cannot be indifferent to the result, either of this debate or of the more definitive debate in October. What is a Party Whip? A Party Whip is an indication to the supporters of a Party when it is in office that a question of Government policy is involved. That is all it is. If it is marked by the Three-Line symbol, it is a question of Government policy involving an issue of confidence and, in my judgment—often expressed in this House and elsewhere—that Three-Line designation should be reserved for questions legitimately made questions of confidence, and not for trivial matters. But, my Lords, is this not a question of Government policy? Of course it is a question of Government policy. The Cabinet collectively, the Cabinet individually, has agreed to it. Is it a question of confidence? My Lords, the overwhelming response of this House has been to describe this as one of the great historic questions of the century, equalled in importance in our lifetime only by entry into one of the major wars. What kind of credibility would an Administration have if it did not declare this to involve issues of Government policy and to involve a degree of confidence in the Administration? The Opposition is in no such position and never can be so until it has changed places with us.

197
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, as it seemed to me, correctly defined the questions which we have to decide. They are two. Are we, in principle, in favour of or against entry into the enlarged Community? That is logically the first question to be answered. But, my Lords, surely it has been answered, at any rate by successive British Governments. It has been answered "Yes" by successive British Governments. Our successive applications for membership under the successive Governments of Mr. Macmillan, Mr. Harold Wilson and the present Prime Minister would otherwise be devoid of meaning. No man who is, or was, a member of any of those Governments can answer this first question in the negative and retain a spark of political credibility. Speaking for myself, I doubt whether, if I answered it in the negative, I could retain a shred of personal honour. To allow one's colleagues to enter into negotiations in good faith with six European nations, and all the time harbour the intention of backing out when they were complete, not on account of disagreement with the terms but on account of a prior objection to entry, would not—at least in my feeling—be the act of an honourable man. Nor could it surely be the act of an honourable man to fake up some objection to the terms as a means of avoiding a decision once made on the question of principle.
No doubt there are those in this House—we heard three of them yesterday; and, certainly, if he will forgive my saying so, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is one—and elsewhere who have always answered the question of principle in the negative. They are of course entitled to maintain their view. They are entitled to maintain it now without loss of reputation, but, I would say with respect, on one condition. Let them always fly their true colours. Let them say, as, to do him credit, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has always said, so far as I know, "Whatever the terms, we will not consent ". Let them not attempt to hide behind the terms actually negotiated to conceal the fact that their opposition is total and unqualified.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will allow me to interrupt him and ask him to turn his remarks to the subject of the Motion before your Lordships'
198
House. It seems to me that he is not following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and although he is not doing it directly, he is casting aspersions upon the honour of certain Members of another place.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am casting no aspersions on anyone, except to say that if I answered the question in the negative having allowed these negotiations to go forward I would regard myself as devoid of political credibility and even of personal honour. Let each man be his own judge in such a matter. Let each man, to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, stand up and be counted. With respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, let us not engage in personalities; I have not. I have spoken of my own honour and of my own opinion.
My Lords, if that is right, if the answer to the first question, "Are we in principle opposed or in principle in favour?" is in the affirmative, the only other question open to debate, even in theory, is whether the terms negotiated are acceptable or not. I still venture to suggest that the answer to that question also is obvious. Does anyone, after hearing the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, yesterday, doubt that we started with the same brief as our predecessors, or that they, in their turn, picked up the brief at the point at which it had been put down by their predecessors, Mr. Macmillan's Government? I venture to say that no one who heard the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, yesterday, and no one who knows the high personal reputation of Mr. Thomson, Mr. Jenkins or Mr. Michael Stewart, could doubt that they were speaking what they regarded as the truth, and what I found wholly convincing, when they said that the terms negotiated were, if not the same, at any rate the same without significant difference, as those which they expected to find acceptable had they been vested with the responsibility of carrying them through.
But, even more remarkable, with respect, is the testimony by those who have tried to urge a contrary view. The testimony has not been that they would have rejected those terms not at all. The speech, carefully read, says not that "we would have rejected them" but that

199
" those were not the terms we asked for, these were not the terms we were bound to accept." My Lords, I wonder if anyone who has had any experience of negotiations whatever, whether he was selling a cow in a market or was entering into a test ban treaty with three great Powers, has ever come out of the negotiations with the terms for which he originally asked. That is not what negotiations are about. Of course no one is bound to accept in advance of the end of the negotiations terms which differ from his original offer. But what has never been denied, so far as I know, by anyone, even by those who do not agree with them, is the fact that these terms, if they had been before a political Administration of a different character, would have been likely to be accepted in the light of what the original initiators of the negotiations believed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble and learned Lord what was the particular quotation he used, and where it came from?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was speaking from memory of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in another place when he spoke to the Labour Party—and I watched his words very carefully. I was careful not to quote them exactly, and I think I summarised them correctly, but if I am wrong no doubt the noble Lord will in due course be able to put me right, and I shall be very glad for this to be done.
But, my Lords, those facts which we negotiated, those difficult and troublesome issues, were known to all before we started. There are matters to which we can refer now to which we could not refer then. To begin with, the Community is ten years older. What in 1962 was prophecy is reality to-day. No nation of the Six claims to have lost its sovereignty or its national identity. No nation of the Six wishes to retire or resign from the Community. The members have disputed; they have even wrangled; they have certainly jockeyed for position; but none has opted out, and none has sought to do so. In 1962, and perhaps only to a lesser extent in 1967, it was still legitimate to believe that the phenomenal rate of growth shown
200
by the main members of the Community was due, as in part it certainly was, to the spur enforced upon them by the far greater destruction suffered in the war than that which we suffered ourselves. Of course it was; but not all of of it. That argument will not do now. The main Community countries have outstripped us now, and are continuing to do so, although in 1950 they were lagging behind.
My Lords, the crucial point in this discussion, as it seems to me, was contained in the phrase used by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, at the end of the debate last night—because there has been a remarkable unity of opinion, at any rate among the 31 speakers who represented the majority. She said that it is now or never. We must stand up now and be counted. We must make our decision. We are not likely to get better terms if we wait. It is not likely that we shall get any terms if we wait. But if we did wait one might be sure that as the Community continued on its own way, with us outside, developing its identity and its institutions, with us bereft of the power to influence it, sometimes careless of our interests, sometimes perhaps acting contrary to our interests, the chances that any better terms would ever be acquired by any Government at any later date seem to be wholly negative.
Sometimes we are told to regard the impact effect of entry; the effect of entry upon our balance of payments, our subscription to the Community budget, and prices. My Lords, are we not also entitled to consider the price of non-entry, the impact effect of non-entry? I can say only this as my opinion—and again I speak only for myself in this matter, but I speak with the assurance of profound conviction. I can imagine no greater disaster for this country at the present juncture, other than involvement in a war, than our failure to proceed with the application which we have made now that the negotiations are complete. What would be the effect upon our own people? It would be frustration, and to some even despair. What would be the effect upon international confidence? Our enemies would treat it as another example of British fecklessness. Our friends would be in doubt and bewilderment as to what, after all, we were really playing at; and those who wish to trust us would be

201
wondering how much they could trust. My Lords, what would be the effect upon capital investment; what would be the effect upon capital movements; and who would be prepared to lend us money, as the International Monetary Fund has done in the past?
I was asked to say something about sovereignty, and my noble friend Lord Carrington promised that I would. This is a question which I would gladly have omitted or left where it stood at the end of the debate last night. It has always been my conviction, to use another quotation from the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that the issue of sovereignty was a non-runner. It is a non-issue; and so, I think, it was treated even by the the noble Lord, Lord Soper, in his speech yesterday. But I have this hostage to fortune and I will seek to do my best to redeem it. I know there are people who have genuine fears for our sovereignty if we accede to the Community. I wish I could persuade them that the threat to our industry and the danger to our standard of life, if there be one, presented by the development of this economic giant at our side will exist, whether we enter or not. The threat, if there be one, exists in the plants, in the managements, in the workers, in the competition they offer to our own, in the advantage they enjoy of access to a vast internal market protected by a relatively low external tariff, in the advantages of scale which such a market provides. My Lords, that threat will exist, whether we go in or stay out. The only question for us is whether we go in, whether we choose to share the advantages which will exist on an increased scale in a Community of Ten, or whether we stay outside in the cold, outside the tariff wall, outside the decision-making, with an internal market of less than 60 million, stagnant, lagging behind in output, receiving inadequate investment or slowly sinking in national wealth, wage levels and, I am afraid, technical skill. This was made clear by my noble friend, Lord Orr-Ewing in the debate last night.
I know that some people are bemused by this question of sovereignty. I think that they were answered adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, last night. I wish that I could persuade, for instance, my lifelong friend, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, that sovereignty is a question of
202
fact, like sex or domicile, and not a question of legal theory. If you want to judge whether a nation is sovereign then you want to look at it, to examine its institutions, to see whether, in fact, it is an independent people. But such people believe that the creation of a common system of institutions, the creation of a Commission, of a system of law, a court, a Council of Ministers, the absence of a period set to the treaty, the irrevocable nature of the step that we are taking in entering, diminishes our sovereignty, threatens our national identity, cribs and confines our power. But ultimately it is a question of fact. The proof of the pudding lies in the eating and not in a study of the terms of legal theory. The test is to be found not by research into the treaty but by examining the existing six members, who have been members for so long, and in asking oneself the simple practical question whether they are sovereign States or not.
Responding to this test, I say without hesitation that all of the Ten, in or out, are and will remain, sovereign nations and recognised as such by every other nation in the world, by every other international agency in the world that I am aware of. They have their own Heads of State, monarchical or republican, their own national identity and traditions. They are governed by their own Cabinets, they have their own courts, their own armed forces and their own police. It is true that they have set up among themselves a free trade area. It is true that for that purpose they have concerted common policies; it is true that they have created in addition joint institutions which administer the policy of the Market, the International Court to decide the law, a Commission and other common organs. But such a community has none of the characteristics of a federation. The instruments of power, the police, the armed forces, the Legislature and the Cabinet, although they may lend themselves to the common institutions as enforcement agencies but only each within its own territory, are in the hands of the members. We derogated from our sovereignty far more when we borrowed money from the Common Market in 1967, 1968 and 1969, I think, than we shall when we join. We derogated from our sovereignty far more when we entered

203
NATO than we shall when we enter the Community.
Then there is the question of the alleged unlimited duration of the treaty. Over the centuries there have been literally hundreds of treaties with no period of termination. There have been actually some, indeed many, expressed to last for ever. These have not been the most long-lived. No one has ever supposed that these derogate from the sovereignty of the participants. It may be a breach of contract to denounce them; in many cases it is. But the power to denounce still remains. It is as if people believe that the marriage service prevents a man from deserting his wife. The melancholy fact is that such treaties last, that they have lasted, so long and only so long as the will to preserve them persists. If we enter, we enter without thought of going back, as the others have entered and stay in without thought of going back. But we will remain as the others remain, sovereign. We are not in the habit of going back on our word. We do not treat treaties as scraps of paper; but we have always in practice had the power to do so, since power is a question of fact and power is the reality of sovereignty.
My Lords, I am not alone in saying this. My two immediate predecessors on the Woolsack, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne (who now sits on the Cross-Benches), offered the same opinion in the course of their Lord Chancellorships. But they were only expressing a view which I believe to be that of the best legal talents available in the country. During the tenure of my present office by Lord Kilmuir, the Government of the day appointed a committee of lawyers including the senior Law Officers of the day both of England and of Scotland, members of the solicitors' profession and of the Bar, judges, Law Lords and international lawyers to report on this very question to the then-Lord Chancellor. Their concluded view was that neither the application of what is called "Community Law" to transactions in this country nor the indefinite duration of the treaty involved a surrender of any part of the ultimate sovereignty of Parliament. For myself, I regard the point as unarguable, and I am surprised, even
204
grieved, when I see distinguished gentlemen whom I respect greatly arguing to the contrary.
If I may say so, the people who are puzzled about sovereignty make a fundamental mistake as to the inherent character of the Common Market institutions. There is, of course, a respect in which these do mark a fresh departure in modern Europe. Hitherto, we have been accustomed to only two patterns in the association between communities: what I may call the consortium model, an association bound only by treaty; and the federation, or the true merger of sovereignty into a single super-State, that entity which yesterday caused the noble Lord, Lord Soper, so much alarm. It is true that both the League of Nations and the United Nations' Charter have terms of association containing common institutions. For us, at least, this position was masked by our possession of the veto. The fallacy, however, lies in believing that every association which is not a federation must be a consortium, and every institution which goes outside the consortial pattern must be a derogation from sovereignty because it is a step in the direction of federation.
I believe this to be incorrect. It is not so, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, reminded us yesterday, in private life; it is not necessarily so in the relations between States. It is true that the Communities have gone beyond the consortial pattern. There are these common institutions; the Commission, the Assembly, the Ministers, the court. There are fields of common law, very restricted because they are limited to the fields necessary to give effect to the nature of the economic community, but effective because they are enforced either by the legislative power of the individual member States or by the courts of the member States giving direct effect to rules of community law as interpreted by the Community courts. At first sight, this looks like a derogation from sovereignty. But I submit that, on close inspection, one can see that it is nothing of the kind. There is no physical power behind these institutions except the will of the members to keep their bargain, and no legislative or coercive power except the organs of the members to give effect to that will.
Admittedly, this is more than a consortium. Common institutions and common rules are essential to give effect to

205
a community that is more than a customs union or a free trade area. It is possible to give effect to such rules by forming a federation. But this is precisely what has not been done. What has been done is to create an association, as the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, said, on the analogy of a commercial partnership. No one pretends that men or women who form a modern commercial partnership are forfeiting their identity or freedom. What they are doing is to create an association with common rules, often with qualified voting power as the Communities have, provisions for arbitration to interpret their rules, and very often with institutions in the shape of special meetings, and sometimes without provisions for termination. But basically the foundation of the Communities is contract, is treaty, not coercion. The coercive powers are in the member States. That is what guarantees their sovereignty. That is what explains the effective power of veto by which member States exercise de facto a right of veto when their fundamental interests are involved.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord a question? I am trying to follow him with the utmost care. In view of what he has said about sovereignty, would he be kind enough to define what is meant by European Community unity? How does he define "unity"?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have not attempted to speak of unity yet, although I may have a word to say about that in a moment. I was in fact about to point out that Article 6 of the Treaty itself provides that:
" The institutions of the Community…shall take care not to prejudice the internal and external financial stability of the Member States."
But, my Lords, this would be the case whether or not the express provision was in the Treaty. The foundation of the Community lies in contract and not coercion, although by contract the parties use their powers so as to produce some of the results achieved formerly only by federation. This is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister meant by the "pooling" of sovereignty. I would prefer to use this phrase. The Treaty is a contract to use the sovereignty of each member for limited purposes in
206
concert with the others and to create institutions to enable this to be done without derogation of national independence.
My Lords, at the end of the day, I confess that I see the choice before us in stark and somewhat simple terms. I believe that this is a choice between an opportunity for greatness, on the one hand, and the certainty of decline, on the other: greatness if we have the faith, the vision and the confidence to go in; decline if we are too weak, too timid, too frightened of the future to opt for greatness, and thus remain out, in the false belief that we can obtain security under the protection of a tariff wall in the fool's paradise of a little Britain, hag bound by restriction, afraid of opportunity and unable to stand up to competition; unable to comprehend that the market will continue to grow in influence and wealth whether we are in or out, and that the only thing we shall achieve by the rejection of our opportunity will be to debar ourselves and our friends from any place in the vital process of decision-making.
My Lords, forgive a personal reference to close my remarks. My mind goes back 21 years to the time when Winston Churchill asked me to wind up for the Party in the debate on the Schumann initiative on the first day—the Schumann initiative which resulted in the creation of the Coal and Steel Community. This was the first of the sequence of events which brought the three Communities into being. It was, my Lords, an important speech for me. I knew then that my father was dying and I knew, or believed I knew, that this was the last speech I would ever be privileged to make in the House of Commons.
As I thought about my speech to-day, I thought back to that day on June 26, 1950, when I stood up from the Back Benches with a divided Party about me. I said then these words, which I would not to-day alter in any way. I appealed then, and I appeal now, across the Floor of the House to the Leaders of the Party opposite. Then, as now, there were those in my own Party and in the Labour Party who dissented from what I said. It was this that led me to appeal to them and to the House in these terms:
"…there comes a time for Parties and statesmen to adopt certain principles because they believe them to be right, and not because

207
they believe that their action may bring them a temporary electoral success. It is the duty of statesmen and of Governments to lead and to guide and not merely to reflect opinion. This course of action which we advance…we believe, on this side of the House, is right, and we believe that the time will come when it will he recognised to be right. We only hope and pray that the hour of realisation will arrive, not in the moment of catastrophe, not in the agony of despair, but in time to repair the mistakes which are being made at the moment."
My Lords, when I uttered those words at the beginning of that sequence of events I did not know—how could I?—that when the moment came when once again we had the opportunity to repair the error we had made that I should be speaking as a member of the Government which staked its reputation on putting the failure right. But I did know this. Although then, as now, I reckoned that the economic advantages would be great; although then, as now, I did not—nor do I now—feel myself in the least enamoured by a European federation, I did not then regard and I do not now regard, the advantages of membership as purely economic. For I ended by saying, and I venture now to repeat:
" For 2,500 years the nations of Western Europe…have struggled painfully, brick by brick, to build up a body of political doctrine enshrining belief in the freedom of individuals and of nations, fortified by the rule of law, sustained and inspired in the later centuries by the massive philosophy and age long tradition of historical Christianity, achieving, as I believe, not only an unparalleled measure of human freedom, but also an unparalleled measure of political co-operation.
" This is the Western civilisation of which we talk. This is the Christian society. This is the thing which gives us all a second country above and apart from that in which we were born. This is the tradition which gives to our constant internecine feuds and strifes the poignancy as well as the bitterness of civil war."
" It has not proved enough. The specific challenge of history to our civilisation has been its inability to solve the problem of peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 26/6/50; col. 2054.]
Twice in my lifetime Europe has been deluged with blood, our blood, the blood of our fathers' generation in the First War, the blood of our brothers in the second. Here at last, my Lords, is a plan which, apart from its economic advantage, seems to offer a solid hope that in this part of the world at least it will not happen again; that not a third time, not with the blood of our children,
208
as with the blood of our brothers and fathers, shall the fields of Europe be sodden once more.
My Lords, to be British is a special and not the least honourable way of being European. When this great prize of which men have dreamt vainly through the centuries at last appears glittering before us, shall we alone stand aloof? Shall Achilles only remain sulking in his tent? I believe that we should be false to our past, we should betray our children, if we allowed temporary or merely ephemeral considerations to cloud our judgment in making this historic choice. My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his peroration yesterday quoted some words of Shakespeare. There is a simple little Tudor rhyme which is even more telling:
" He who will not when he may,
When he will he shall have nay."
Let us not sell our birthright for a mess of potage. Let not the curse of Esau ever fall upon this land!
3.18 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful for the careful exposition of the constitutional position which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has put before us. We shall read with great interest what he had to say.
My Lords, at the beginning the noble and learned Lord made much of the fact that he was of a decisive majority of pro-Market speakers within your Lordships' House, and I wondered whether possibly I was expected to ask to be excused for standing up to be counted as one of the minority. I shall forbear to apologise, and I am fortified in the knowledge that it will not be the first time in our history that a minority of your Lordships' House has in the event been proven correct. As for the noble and learned Lord's sensitive lecture on personal honour I can only say that I prefer the words of my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins when he said:
" I think we shall get on much better if we all respect one another's sincerity. We shall impress the country and the leaders of Europe and the world more if we talk more about the issues and less about one another."
That is what I propose to try to do. We all seem to be agreed that there are two basic aspects to this issue, the political and the economic, or, as we might put it

209
in this House, the spiritual and the temporal, for in this context I include in the term "political" the whole sense and purpose of our society.
Though some appear to put the emphasis upon one aspect more than another, the political more than the economic, or the other way round, I hope we can also agree—and in this I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—that while a society can enjoy, for a time at any rate, an affluent economy without any meaningful sense of political purpose, it is not feasible to have a purposeful, effective, influential political policy without a sound, power-providing economy. However, for me, and I think that here I have the agreement of my noble friend Lord Soper and of other noble Lords opposite, all the arguments about the economic advantage of going in or staying out of the E.E.C. have meaning only in so far as they enable the British people to implement a worthwhile, satisfying political-social-spiritual policy. I invite the House first to agree that neither going in nor staying out will of itself give us a higher growth rate, a higher standard of living, or a sounder economic base. The quality of our economic management will be far more important than market affiliations. What the Chancellor has done last week could—I do not say, will—improve our growth rate far more than tariff changes of six countries of Europe.
It is said that going in will give us greater incentive and greater opportunity. Is there really more than faith to support this? We have built up a pattern of trade that reflects both our history and the physical and geographical facts of life. We import half our food and almost all our raw material. We have built an export trade to pay for those imports which, despite all our failings, to-day provides us with a substantial surplus. We have continued to build up this trade, because we have bought our food and raw materials in the cheapest markets and we have kept down manufacturing costs, because our food costs were low.
For all our vaunted increase in trade with the E.E.C., 30 per cent. of our exports go to the Commonwealth Preference Area and another 15 per cent. to EFTA., 45 per cent. compared with 20 per cent. with E.E.C. Of course, in percentage terms our trade with the Com-
210
monwealth has declined, but for over a decade there has been an attitude of defeatism towards the Commonwealth and, I say deliberately, in parts of Whitehall, a continuous and insistent attempt over the last ten years to divert Commonwealth trade because of E.E.C. expectations. Yet it still remains true that British exports to the Commonwealth have increased nearly tenfold in value since 1938 and have doubled in volume.
It is this pattern of trade, and all the expertise, traditions, communications, sales offices, and human relations that support it, that we now propose to change. The incentive of opportunities of the 20 per cent. area are said to be so great that they can not only compensate for the undoubted losses in the 80 per cent. but they can open the door to the economic miracle. Frankly, I doubt it. I doubt it for two reasons. No one has yet given—and certainly the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack did not—any rational explanation as to how or why this miraculous increase is to happen. The White Paper does not even attempt it. And secondly, all the facts we do know, and can be reasonably sure about, add up to an enormous burden upon our economy when we turn from one preference system to another and make this new effort in Europe.
Much has been said about the so-called terms, following the recent negotiations. "Better than we expected", "as good as we expected", "very satisfactory taking everything into account". But no one has said that they are actually beneficial. Not even my noble friend Lord George-Brown has said that. No one has said that they will help our export effort. In every case, a minus, not so big a minus as we might have expected, but still a minus. No single item, probably, sufficiently damaging as to justify a rejection but taken together they constitute a burden for us, and uncertainty for those with whom we have been so long associated. And the biggest minus of them all was not even open to negotiation; namely, the utterly unjustifiable Common Agricultural Policy, which we had to accept without quibble or qualification.
I have sat on several of the pre-Farm Review Committees. I have listened ad nauseam to Treasury arguments that we could not afford another penny or

211
two on beef or pig meat or cereals. Even another copper on this commodity or that, even a slightly better deal for the British farmer, we were told by the Treasury, would upset our economy. But here we are coolly proposing to charge ourselves, on different items, anything up to 100 per cent. more for some of the food and feeding stuffs that we import. When we come to the balance of payments penalty which membership entails, we find, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd found, conflicting claims among the experts. Some can be dismissed. It is difficult to take seriously the White Paper claim that the additional cost of food imports will be only £5 million rising to £50 million a year. This, I suggest, can only be dismissed as pure fantasy.
These are my words, but the words of Sir John Winnifrith, who was previously Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, were a little stronger. He says this:
" No evidence is given—
that is, in the White Paper—
" for assuming that we should get £100 million back from the agricultural budget and the assumption that the cost of our import of food will be only £50 million more if we went in than if we stayed out is utterly ludicrous. The realistic cost to the balance of payments of our contribution to the Brussels budget and of our dearer imported food cannot be less than £500 million a year."
I understand—and we are all pleased to hear—that the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, is to speak about agriculture. Possibly she will be kind enough to answer this further point which Sir John Winnifrith made on the subject. He said:
" If instead of throttling back New Zealand's exports to this country and if instead of shutting out Australian exports, with a cold arrogance and contempt—
and he watched, as I watched, what happened in Whitehall over the last 10 years—
" we were free to make a long-term contract with these trusted friends, then there could be an abundance of dairy products and meat at prices to which we have been accustomed in the past. This is no theory. It is the inevitable consequence of rearing cattle in a climate where you can feed them on grass alone and not have to house them in the winter."
212
That is one item—the food cost in the White Paper—which I think we can dismiss. As for the sentence in paragraph 42, about the net balance of payment costs of our budget contribution being only £200 million, "if the budget were to remain unchanged", it could, in these post-V and G days at the Department of Trade and Industry, be enough to warrant a prosecution for a misleading prospectus.
Mr. Douglas Jay's analysis and Professor Kaldor's calculations, which may have been disputed but not disproved, show a balance of payments burden, because of higher food and feeding stuff costs, the contribution to the Agricultural Fund, the Community Budget, the net worsening of visible trade in non-food products and the movement across the exchanges on capital account, of something around £1,000 million a year. Her Majesty's Government would say that the figure would be less, though, in reasonable probability, it could be more. But whatever the precise handicap, whether we choose one set of figures or another, it is a serious handicap, which has to be cleared before we start to gain advantage.
And, my Lords, advantage from what? This is what all the faith rests upon. This is supposed to be the advantage which offsets the admitted disadvantages: the so-called dynamic effect. Yet the extraordinary thing is that no statistical evidence can be found to support this faith. My right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins dealt with this point in another place, and I take the opportunity of saying that his intellectual integrity and his ability do far more to persuade me about the rightness of this argument than anything in the Government's White Paper. I listened with special interest to what he said on this point. He accepted that the comparison of growth rates was a crude test. He offered more sophisticated comparisons about the ratio of export costs to domestic prices.
Here it seemed, after much research by the foremost champion on our side, might be the elusive factor. It did sound convincing, until Mr. Powell shot the argument clean out of the sky by saying that by that yardstick some non-E.E.C. countries did better than some E.E.C. countries. Here again is a non-proof.

213
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research said in November on this point,
" It is hard to think that if the dynamic properties of a widening market were really as great as is sometimes suggested the statistical evidence of this influence would be so completely and consistently lacking."
My Lords, have we not allowed ourselves to be carried away by the emotive character of the term "dynamic effect"? The National Institute's conclusion was
" To accept a heavy burden of impact effects as the price of entry, in the belief that the 'dynamic effects' are likely to be even bigger, would under these circumstances represent a triumph of hope over experience."
We hear less now about the superior growth rate of the E.E.C. countries, but of course it can be said, as the noble and learned Lord who sits so comfortably on the Woolsack said,
" The growth rate of E.E.C. countries has been greater than ours."
This is true, I agree with him, but it has nothing to do with E.E.C. membership. Our growth rate, under Governments of differing colours, has been low because it has been deliberately restricted for balance of payments reasons. We have had this balance of payments problem, not because of E.E.C. non-member-ship but primarily because of the volume of Government spending overseas.
If we had lost the war with Germany, if our national debts had been largely wiped out, if we had been spared any military expenditure overseas, if we had been helped to re-equip our industry for anti-Communist reasons, and, I might add, if we had worked as hard as the Germans, then our growth rate would have been immensely higher, and compared much more favourably. But that proves nothing about the dynamism of E.E.C. membership. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, is to speak, and we shall all listen with extra care to what he says, for he might be thought to hold the secret of this promised exporting success.
Recent B.B.C. pro-Market propaganda showed graphically a barrier to British cars being removed and vehicles from our shores flowing across to the Continent. Of course it is true that a 13 per cent. reducing to 11 per cent. tariff will not apply to us if we join. But ordinary honesty ought also to have
214
shown a similar barrier on our coasts being removed for the convenience of Continental cars. The interesting thing is that in recent years they have shown greater ability in climbing over our barriers than we have shown in climbing over theirs. No doubt if both barriers are removed, other things being equal, we should give as much as we get. But other things will not be equal. Their costs will remain the same; ours will go up.
Does the noble Lord really think that with this addition to our living costs, directly attributable to E.E.C. entry, he will not be faced with bigger wage claims? There will be inevitable wage demands to meet increases in the cost of living. But additionally the Government have dangled exaggerated prospects of higher living standards, and the only way trade unionists will know of implementing those promises will be by still higher wage claims. The noble Lord may speak of lower unit costs because of higher output, but is he sure that we can switch our external tariffs without losing some output to non-E.E.C. markets? That is not what the C.B.I. has said, let alone Professor Kaldor.
So, my Lords, I have doubts about these unexplained, unsupported dynamic effects. One can see only too clearly that our industry will be penalised to a greater or less extent in its traditional markets, and will enter this new and more restricted market handicapped with substantial additional costs and having to meet the competition of manufacturers operating on their home ground who have all the benefits of a bigger market without any of our penalties.
I have another doubt, which is of major importance but which I shall express more briefly. It concerns the regional development of the United Kingdom. It is claimed that we shall be as free in the future as in the past to give special help to, say, the North-East or South-West, or Scotland or South Wales. There is some doubt about this claim, but even assuming that it reflects the existing E.E.C. facts I am not sure that it can satisfy objective questions. Successive Governments have done much, and the last Government did very much, to help this genuine and serious problem, yet despite all this help, one out of ten of all adults in parts of Scotland is out of

215
work to-day. "Yes", it is said, "but given more prosperity at the centre, it will be better in the regions." But will it? All those who have represented a constituency in the London or the South-East area will know the reluctance of industry to move outside. There is a tremendous pull of the prosperous centre. If the centre of gravity shifts to the Lower Rhine or Brussels, then how much more difficult to get a company to agree to put up its new factory on the Clyde or in County Durham.
I am reminded that there will still be planning consent, needed, and the I.D.C. or its equivalent will be there, but there will be one essential difference between the persuasive power of the I.D.C. to-day and in E.E.C.'s to-morrow. To-day a company can be told it either puts up its factory in the development area or not at all. To-morrow they can say, "Thank you very much, there is a free movement of capital. The factory goes up on the Continent". The more successful the Market, the more potent is this pull towards the centre. More than one company in this country is to-day holding up its investment decisions until the E.E.C. decision is taken, and then it will be on the Continent that the money will go and where employment will be found.
Myrdal, in his study Economic Theory and Underdeveloped Regions points to the conclusion that "Economic development tends to crystallise in limited areas". This, of course, only confirms what we see happening around us. Given a European scale of operations, from the Orkneys and Shetland down to Sicily, there is an enormous temptation to have one's headquarters somewhere in the middle—and that does not mean in the United Kingdom.
I found this happening after the War when, as a United Nations delegate, we discussed centres for specialised agencies in Europe. I have also seen this with commercial concerns. If the H.Q. goes to, say, Brussels or Bonn there will be appropriate British senior and specialist staff; but the typists, the cleaners, the maintenance people, are all locally engaged, and they shop locally, and they patronise local services, and these all in turn are customers for other manufacturers. This centripetal pull is inevitable.
216
And, given that pull, there may well be a United Europe in another decade, but the Scottish Nationalists will have their greatest argument yet for secession from the United Kingdom.
I may be told that, while I have doubts, there were German and French and Belgian doubters, especially on the Left, and that they would not accept that their doubts were groundless. My Lords, I am 100 per cent. convinced that what has happened on the Continent is best for the Six. Even the bizarre Common Agricultural Policy is infinitely to be preferred to the awful physical waste and mental degradation of the Siegfried and Maginot Lines. What a wonderful thing it is, I agree, that those who once slaughtered each other on the Somme and at Passchendaele should now be talking about harmonising taxation and drawing up detailed plans for a common currency. But I venture to think, and I put it to your Lordships, that that immensely far-seeing truly great Frenchman, Charles de Gaulle, was right when he declared that our way—Britain's way—lay in a somewhat different direction.

I am not a Little Englander. I have always been proud of our world-wide association. But though Cousin Jack went out to North America, South America, Asia and Australasia, he seldom turned up in Luxembourg or Liege. I have never read, as far as I can recall, of the youngest son setting out to make a fortune in the Saar Basin or the Rhone Valley. And that is why 80 per cent. of our trade is still done beyond the E.E.C. countries.
Of course, Europe offers opportunities. One commutes to-day to Paris or Munich as easily as Leeds or Leicester. There are 20,000 British workers, they tell me, in West Germany. Our biggest firms are European based: for example, Unilever and Royal Dutch Shell. Two of the most exciting technological projects to-day, the Concorde and M.R.C.A., are partnerships of ourselves and the French, the Germans and the Italians. But this is happening to-day, and I passionately hope it will continue into the future. Meanwhile, as a Financial Times columnist put it, the Kennedy Round worldwide dismantling of tariffs and quotas makes the E.E.C. liberalisation look small beer indeed.

217
If China really enters into a new relationship with the Western world it will offer trading opportunities much greater than all the Six put together, if we look for growth, Australia is now poised for greater expansion than anything we have yet seen in Europe. Even little New Zealand, as my noble friend, Lord Energlyn, was telling me the other day, if it harnesses its uniquely cheap hydro-thermal power to Australian minerals, can be another Japan. All these are challenges and opportunities, and we have EFTA too. At home we are on the threshhold of a new era with natural gas and nuclear power.
To say that the alternative to the E.E.C. is an isolated stagnation is sheer defeatism. It is not in accordance with the facts of life, if we study them. I have always agreed that our historically unique experience with a multi-racial Commonwealth fitted us to lead the way to the political reality of the world. That would be a political future worthy of our past. At a time when we can converse with anyone anywhere on the globe, when the supersonic aircraft brings any country within 12 hours of another, it would be tragic if we chose this year to give up our role as a world trading State. Economically and politically that world role, if accepted with enthusiasm and unity, could hand to our children an inheritance greater than anything that we have received.
3.46 p.m.
LORD ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM: My Lords, I suppose I might be regarded as rather remiss, having been a Member of your Lordships' House for some ten years, in not yet having made a maiden speech—which I do now. But I can only plead the Addison Rules and the pressure of running a great State industry. In reading carefully the debates in this House and elsewhere and in following very closely the arguments given, my mind flitted back to those days in 1951 when the Government of the day was invited to attend the meeting in Paris after the Schumann Declaration. I know that because this is a maiden speech I must not be controversial, nor must I be too long, and I shall faithfully follow those precepts. I realise that I have handicapped myself very considerably, especially after the speech of my noble
218
friend Lord Beswick, but I cannot help thinking of the argument that has taken place on sovereignty, and my mind goes back to that day and to a meeting of the Cabinet at that time.
I can see those men grouped round that table now: there was Clem Attlee doing one of his intricate doodles, and there was the booming voice of the late Hugh Dalton, making sure that he was completely heard. The whole of the arguments were based upon whether we were interpreting correctly the words "supranational authority", because the implication was very clear: it was that no nation should go to the conference if it did not accept in advance the principle of a supranational authority. It was on this that the argument went on. I will not go into details because it would not perhaps be proper, but certainly it was felt that it would be quite impossible for this country to attend that Paris meeting having accepted beforehand the objective of a supranational authority, since that would undoubtedly interfere with our own sovereignty, the right to run the newly-nationalised industries as we thought fit, the right to invest capital where we wanted it, and a whole range of matters which the then Government were deeply involved in and which demanded national sovereignty. It could never be accepted that someone or some group of people on the Continent of Europe should dictate the policies concerning these matters.
Other countries, I learned later, who were also concerning themselves with this question of whether to accept the principle of a supranational authority, were wiser than we were. At least two of those countries accepted the invitation and the concept of the supranational authority en principe. We did not have the wit to do that—perhaps we were too honest—but if we had had the wit to accept en principe and attend that conference in Paris, I aver that today we should all be delighted that we had been in at the beginning of the Community and of the Coal and Steel Assembly, as a full party and not just as an associate member bound by Treaty. We should have played our part in a way which, in my view, would have meant that we should be leading the Community—and in those days it needed a good deal of leadership

219
because of the problems that existed between the French and the Germans. I hope that we shall not make this mistake again by having long arguments on the pros and cons, because one can make as good an argument for as one can make against entry. At the end of the day it is the personal judgment of people that counts. One does not need to be bitterly personal about these matters; these are matters of judgment.
In reading the debates I have seen little reference to the Coal and Steel Community. Sovereignty is not at risk in this working of the European Coal and Steel Community. The experience of the Community showed undoubtedly that our first fears of supranationality were completely unfounded. Careful reading of the Treaty which emerged from the Paris negotiations showed that the High Authority was given much less power than was envisaged in the Schumann Declaration or, indeed, in the propaganda at that time. On every important issue the Governments have reserved the right to make decisions themselves. The Council of Ministers, not the High Authority, has emerged as the supreme executive institution. In the Council each Minister represents his national Government and national interest. An example of this was an attempt by the High Authority in 1958 to invoke Article 58 of the Treaty which said that when there was a manifest crisis they could make a decision. The manifest crisis in 1958 was to deal with the coal surpluses which were very substantial in that year. They wished, as a High Authority, to establish production quotas for all their mining countries. They were all turned down by the Council of Ministers. The High Authority never attempted again to intervene. Since then the Community has operated by intergovernmental negotiation and compromise within the Council of Ministers.
The White Paper shows that there are no serious issues in the negotiations so far as coal and steel are concerned. The previous Government publicly stated at the time of their application to join that they accepted the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, and the regulations under it. In the National Coal Board we occupied a unique position in the Council of Association. We were signatories to the Treaty as associate
220
members and, as Chairman of the Coal Board, I attended most of the meetings. In this country we benefited from the close ties that we had established with the Community coal producers. This experience of the working of the Treaty, and the acceptance by the previous Government of the E.C.S.C. Treaty, seems to be absolutely right, and the present Government cannot do otherwise than accept it. Negotiations can be concerned only with any adaptations of the Treaty and regulations that will be required to provide for the accession of new members. There is nothing in this Treaty which would give our publicly-owned enterprises, the National Coal Board, or the British Steel Corporation any cause for concern whatsoever. The management of the industries, the organisations of their Boards, the relationship between the Boards and the unions, are not affected. The pre-occupations of the steel industry are being adequately taken care of. It has been agreed, for example, that the steel tariff will be reduced gradually, but over a five-year period, and for scrap it has been agreed that export controls may be maintained for two years within the enlarged Community.
Entry will open up new opportunities for the British coal industry, because from January 1, 1973, British coal can flow freely into the Community countries. This has not been the case so far; we have been banned by quotas and licensing arrangements. At the present time the Community import more than 25 million tons of coal from third countries, of which our share is barely 10 per cent. There is a market which the great State enterprise, the National Coal Board, can go for and be highly successful in obtaining a very much larger share of the market. Conversely, Community coal is free to come into this country. But it can do so now, because the import restrictions were lifted last December. The only coal which has come from the Community has been a tiny amount of domestic coal, but not one single ounce of industrial coal, which shows clearly that the National Coal Board is in a situation of ability in terms of production, efficiency, costs and prices to go into the Community and establish for itself a much larger proportion of that market. This is a big market in terms of exports and balance

221
of payments. If one takes the cost of coal per ton, including the cost of insurance, freight and so on, one is speaking of something in the region of £8 or £9 a ton. If that is multiplied by 10 million tons that is a substantial contribution in terms of balance of payments, based not upon productive activity but upon the process of getting the coal from beneath the ground. It is clear to me that neither coal nor steel have anything to fear from joining the Community.
I have read and heard criticism of the Commission's power to raise funds by means of a levy on coal and steel. What are the funds used for? Partly to meet the Community's administrative expenses, but mainly to finance research projects and re-adaptation measures in the Community's coal and steel industries. Re-adaptation payments include allowances to carry a worker through until he finds a new job, make-up pay for workers forced to take less well-paid jobs, payments to retrain workers for other jobs, and resettlement grants for workers who move to other areas. Half of the money required to finance re-adaptation measures is paid by the Government and half from the Community funds. As from the date of entry, our coal and steel industries, and the workers in them, will be able to benefit from these research and re-adaptation funds on an equal footing with all the present members of the Community.
I believe that the enlargement of the Community will greatly strengthen the European Coal and Steel industry as a whole which, in terms of output of 300 million tons of coal, and a labour force of 600,000 people, will more effectively influence the determination of the Community and national energy policies and more firmly establish the position of indigenous coal in Europe. The British coal industry, representing, as it will, almost half of the Community's coal output, will be strengthened by participating in the formulation of these policies and by benefiting commercially from the advantages of a larger market. It is a great personal regret that when the great union, the National Union of Mineworkers, debated this issue at its conference, it spent precisely 13 minutes on these matters and decided to vote against entry.
Similar considerations apply to steel. I believe that a new and enlarged Com-
222
munity will be extremely strong in steel and power, and much better placed to respond to the competitive pressures which are likely to grow throughout the world steel markets.
Most people to-day in the business and indeed the political world are concerned about economic growth. But where does economic growth come from? Economic growth can come only from increased in vestment, and there is no hope of increasing growth substantially unless first there is a substantial increase in investment. What is it that makes an industrialist decide to invest money at all? It is first the market possibilities for the product he is producing; and secondly, or with it, the profit that will come from such a transaction. There is nothing wrong in profits, although it is regarded, I know, in some circles as an obscenity even to use the word. But it is of course out of profits that wages and better conditions for workers will come. In the Co-operative movement they did not like the word "profit", so they called it "a surplus".
It must be remembered that as each month goes by technical progress is so great that the cost of investment in any new development to-day is escalating at a fantastic rate. Therefore, if one is required to put millions of pounds down for a great operating plant complex, or a quarter of a million pounds for a special machine tool, that money is not going to be invested unless one can see that that plant is going to be operating and is enabled to sell the products, sizeable as they will be, in a market. Therefore, if this country does not join the Community, those people who are engaged in international business will tend to invest more and more of their money in new plant and machinery within the present Common Market; because all we can offer them here is a consumer market of 50 million, for a market of 200 million consumers not many miles away.
I do not think, either, that we should think merely in terms of international companies whose boardrooms may lie in other countries than our own. Many British institutions, companies, are already in the Common Market. What exactly is their investment policy likely to be if in fact Britain does not go into the Common Market? They have a choice of doing two things: to invest

223
where the market is there without tariff restrictions, or to provide four times that size of investment in the United Kingdom, having to produce something that has to jump over somebody else's tariff. And I have no doubt, whatever they may say in terms of patriotism at this moment of time, that money will determine this matter and the investment will go in the Common Market, and we in this country in my view will be like factories that are now operating in the development areas in this country.
This has been the experience of most of us who have looked fairly closely at what is happening. A company has a very big operating unit and decides it must expand. It is not allowed to expand in the area where it is operating and must go to a development area. It puts up a plant in a development area. But what happens when trade goes? It gradually closes down or works at a slower rate the plant in the development area and brings its main operations back to its first main unit. And, if we are not careful, we shall be putting this country into the position of becoming the development area of the whole of Europe. In my view, this is the danger that lies ahead. These enthusiasms at this moment of time for and against, when a decision is made, will wane; but if the decision is against, then I do not see this investment in the United Kingdom, and I see the present plants which are owned by British industry to-day more as plants in a development area than in the main area of business.
These are the dangers, it seems to me—not necessarily the terms upon which we go in, but what will it cost this country and the people in terms of employment and standards of living if we do not go in? This is the real question not the argument as to whether it should be tuppence on a pair of kippers or four-pence on a pound of butter. It seems to me that that is incidental to the main issue, which is the impact on the economy of this country if we do not go in. I am not going to get controversial. I was about to say that I am not moved by these discussions about Australia and the other Commonwealth countries. They will do what is best for themselves every time; do not make any mistake about that. But I must not go into that.
224
I sincerely say that we ought to go in for some of the reasons I have given. And if we are afraid of the competition in the present Community, then we all ought to pack up and go home and try to get back to a peasant society. A country that produced jet engines, produced the method by which we can use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, produced penicillin and produced any number of post-war inventions that the world has taken up—if it even considers being frightened of competition in Europe, it needs to have a very good look at itself and to explain to itself where its courage has gone to. We ought not as a country to worry about competition. We ought to be able to beat competition, given fair conditions; and getting over tariff barriers is bound to prevent a good deal of trading development.
When we come to the terns, I am not qualified to know whether these are good or bad. All I can say is that, having read to the best of my ability all that has been said about these matters, my judgment is that they are about the best terms that we can get. Merely pretending that we can leave it for another year (that is, if we have the chance) I do not believe is a possibility. By and large, they are the best terms that negotiators could possibly get. But I am much fortified by people whom I have known in politics and business for over a quarter of a century, whose honour and integrity and honesty cannot be impugned by anybody: I refer to Roy Jenkins, Michael Stewart, George Thomson and George Brown. Those people were as intimately involved in the negotiations as anybody else, and if the vote was determined entirely and solely by those who were intimately connected with the negotiations in the previous Administration there would be a majority for entry. For me, that is good enough. I accept the judgment of those people, who knew all the facts and who worked from the same official brief. Therefore, as my own view is that the terms are about as good as one could get, I feel fortified in the fact that these gentlemen support it—and they should know better than anybody.
Of course, there are bound to be pluses and minuses, and the unfortunate fact, it seems to me, is that in the pluses and the minuses the minuses all come in the first years. There are some pluses but lots of minuses. But that should not

225
deter us. This country has never been afraid through its history of facing long odds, and I should have thought that while we must accept that probably there will be more minuses than pluses in the first years, we ought to accept those odds.
I am grateful to your Lordships for listening to me. Perhaps I have taken more time than I should have done. But I believe that this is a matter that stands well above Party, well above personalities. This is the future of the nation that we are talking about. In a previous period in another place a man stood up and said: "Speak for the nation!"—the father, I think, of my noble friend who sits on these Benches here; and the House spoke for the nation on that occasion. I think that this is one of those occasions, a turning point, and I believe one of no turning back; it is an opportunity that we should grasp with all the problems that it involves. I believe fervently that British entry into the European Community will be good for Britain, good for Europe; and if things are good for Europe and good for Britain, then it seems to me they may well be good for the world at large.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to find myself addressing your Lordships immediately after my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham. As he may remember, our association goes back many years to times when we sat on opposite sides of the House but occasionally had to find some common cause in the difficult subjects concerned with industrial relations. I know we shall all be glad that, for technical reasons which he indicated, he was able to desert his maidenhood in time to stand up and be counted in this important debate, and I know we have all weighed very carefully what he said from his long experience.
My Lords, if I may, for a moment, speak about the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, it is pleasant to find someone who is willing to try to put a constructive, practical argument as to why we should not enter the Community, and at least I would perhaps have common cause with him in the sense that this is a difficult argument, because
226
it is difficult to know—and I believe this is what confuses the country—on what level one places the argument. I think it is not unfair to say (and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong) that his argument was primarily short term; it is a matter of the immediate future, of prices and of our problems. I must tell him that I was in Australia in May, and I do not take his view. The Australians are looking elsewhere; they are tying their trade to Japan, as they probably should in their own immediate interests. They are no longer interested in that great dream of Commonwealth unity—which was a great dream, and nobody is more sorry than I that what the noble Lord said cannot now come to fruition. So there is nothing left in the Commonwealth connection in that economic sense.
Turning now to things that some of us have looked at, like the North Atlantic Free Trade Alliance, that too is not possible for this country unless we want to become a subsidiary of the United States of America, which I am sure we do not. So there is nothing there. I found the noble Lord's argument rather defeatist, and that is what makes me so sad about the attitude of the T.U.C. at this moment. It seems to me to be utterly inward looking and utterly defeatist. I would follow the noble Lord, Lord Robens, and perhaps I might paraphrase what he said by saying that if we cannot cope in the Common Market we cannot cope at all. There is no future for this country if we are going to admit that we fear to face the challenges and the tests (as well as the opportunities) that lie ahead. If that is our attitude, then in my view there is no future, for us or for our children. Therefore, I found the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, very depressing, although if I may I would repeat that it is nice to hear from someone who has sought to put a constructive argument. The only thing I would say is that though I am sure it is sincerely put, so much of it is based on a false judgment of what lies ahead in the longer term.
I wish to make just three short points in regard to my own reasons for standing up among so many who wish to be counted in support of this great challenge. For me, it is not a debate about the price of butter and fish fingers. It is

227
something to do with a European history that goes back to Charlemagne, and as an ex-Minister of Defence I was glad that my noble friend Lord Carrington touched briefly on this. We really must accept that this horrific nuclear pause which has broken for a moment the long sequence of ever more damaging wars that has punctuated European history since the time of the Romans, is almost an accident. It is a temporary pause. If we have not the courage and the civilisation, if I may use that word, to capitalise on it and to try to bring Europe together while the pause lasts and thus to heal at least some of the causes of past wars, we shall never be forgiven by history. So if one takes this broad view. I think it is a debate about the kind of world that our children will live in. It is a debate about this Europe of ours—and it is our Europe, by history, by tradition, by culture. We are not an off-shore island; we never have been, and those who oppose the Common Market seem to me so often to imagine that Europe is still a far away place. It is only 25 miles away and whatever we do it does not go away any further. It is there, and we are part of it, and it is time we recognised that fact and became a working partner instead of a sleeping adjunct. So if one takes this broad and perhaps emotional view—and I do not see why one should not be emotional about one of the greatest causes of our time—I think one is bound to be a strong supporter of entry.
Perhaps I may now turn to the difficult issue which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and other noble Lords have touched on. Where does our advantage lie? One cannot deal with these things entirely in terms of emotion. I think it would be a good thing to stop another war if it were a nuclear one, but equally we have to live. It is necessary in a debate of this kind to state clearly where one stands. The noble Lord, Lord Robens, has reminded me that I voted against entry into the steel and coal community when I was a new and inexperienced Member of the other place. I regret it. I freely confess that I changed my mind a long time ago. I would only say that as long ago as 1969, in a speech in Paris, I said that in world terms the E.E.C. in its present form is not in the
228
long run a large enough trading unit to be viable.
Of course, even if we join the E.E.C. we cannot perhaps match the Americans in voyages to the moon (I do not know why we should want to!) but we will be much more technologically viable. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, knows this. It is all right for him to say that the Concorde goes on whether the Common Market goes on or not. I rather doubt that. I rather doubt whether, unless we now join, and unless we do certain things together we really will have a big enough technological base, not to mount the grandiose things of space but merely to live in a hard and competitive world. Again, it is the inevitable cost of new processes and all the rest that we know about that forces this upon us. What I ventured to say in Paris, rather a long time ago, is that what will matter in the future to Europe is the technological strength, the marketing ability and the financial viability of the widest possible grouping of European nations, including Britain. I said that this has nothing to do with arguments about who negotiated what or who did which; it is just a hard fact as to whether we can earn a high enough standard of living to satisfy the just demands of those who will require it in this advanced technological age. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, says that it is better to do this alone. I am afraid I believe that the weight of technological evidence is that we would only do this together with our friends in Europe.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, I did not say that; I said exactly the opposite. I said that we are doing things together now and I hope that we shall continue to do so in the future.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord said that Concorde and such things would go on, as I have just said, whether we join the Common Market or not. I venture to differ from him and to say that I do not believe they will. I think there has to be a common purpose in spirit, which in my view on the French side was largely put into the Concorde because they believed that in due course this would lead to a greater technological match between our countries. So while we perhaps both

229
agree that Europe needs this greater technological advance, I must say that I find some difficulty in seeing why the noble Lord opposes entry to the E.E.C. Perhaps he will change his mind.
There are two other points I wish to make. First, I think we have to face one fact in a hard and competitive world; that is, what it will be like if we stay out; because we shall have to try to make our separate way, and so will the Six, and we shall suddenly begin to draw apart. This is our last chance; it can never be done again. A fragmented Europe will be ground exceedingly small by the super-Powers both to the East and the West of us. We had better take account of that fact. We are no longer a great Power in that sense and we shall be ground under the heel of larger and more powerful nations unless we do something for ourselves with Europe. So I think that historically and on what one might call the economic geography of the problem we ought to go in.
I think one should not bring too many personalities into these things, but at least you know about the things you do for yourself; and I certainly enjoy commuting to Brussels, Paris, Milan and other places where we have active companies. I sit on some of their hoards with my European colleagues. I find that we talk the same language, that we want to do the same things; I find that I get on very well with our new worker directors who have to come on our board in France, and it seems to me to be working well. In all this kind of economic job I do not feel a foreigner or a stranger. I feel a part of history, as well as a part of a successful day-to-day business. Going into the Market, to me, and to many others, does not mean entering some kind of foreign land. It merely means capitalising on practical and profitable experience, and as I said to our shareholders at the annual general meeting, this is not only making more profits in Europe; this is bringing in more business to Britain to give more work to the 30,000 people we employ here; and I can prove it, so I think on practical grounds again it makes sense.
I would mention one last point. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor touched on this. I really think that this country has to consider in a practical and sensible way what will
230
happen if the Government cannot attain a reasonable majority to conclude our negotiations for entry. Can we really think of the sight of a British Prime Minister going back to the Community and saying, "Although the terms have been accepted by those in both Parties who are best qualified to know as being fair and the best terms we can get, my public opinion is so divided and is so weak and is so uncertain that I am sorry we cannot continue with this application". Does any noble Lord think that that will improve our relations with the Commonwealth? Does any noble Lord think that that will make it easier for us in exports and international business to do our job? Does anyone think it would not be a confession of absolute national weakness and infirmness and of a kind of narrow, inward-looking nation, which will, in my view, condemn itself to a siege economy for its 60 million people? I think that is the choice, and I think whichever way you put it we ought to go ahead. As I said to a very old Australian friend of mine, a very great man, I believe, in the world, "Britain needs something new to do and this may give it us to do". I do not think he disagreed with that. I hope that we shall show by our evidence here, for what it is worth, that we strongly support this concept of entry, and that we encourage the Government to get on and complete these negotiations as soon as possible.
4.23 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not follow up his assumptions and conjectures about the future of the European Community, and in particular the future of our own country. At the same time, perhaps I may offer one or two observations about his speech, or at any rate some aspects of his speech. It struck me that he was inclined to be somewhat superior when he made reference to my noble friend Lord Beswick. He addressed your Lordships' House in a superior fashion and said that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, had actually ventured to offer some constructive proposals.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, if the noble Lord thinks I was being superior, I certainly apologise. I had no intention of being superior; I merely

231
wanted to counter what I thought were very well put arguments.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I accept what the noble Viscount says, but it struck me as being somewhat superior. However, we will forgive him for that.
If I may venture to ask a question, now that I have the noble Viscount's attention, what are his constructive proposals? There is only one—go into the Common Market. There are no others. Who is he to talk about an absence of constructive proposals? Indeed, what the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, did in that speech to which we have just listened was to follow the general line taken by many other of his colleagues on that side of your Lordships' House and it may be also on this side of your Lordships' House. What was that? We had yesterday, and we are having some more of it this afternoon, a spate, a veritable torrent, of denigration and derision and mockery of our own industrial situation, our economic life and our future. If ever defeatism was exposed it has been in your Lordships' House in the past 24 hours. I shall venture a few further observations on this topic a little later.
It may not have escaped your Lordships' notice that yesterday, when the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, addressed the House the Press Gallery was crowded almost to suffocation. And for what purpose? Interest in the Common Market? Not at all: interest in what is alleged to be internecine strife in the Labour Party, and the consequences this very day. For the purposes of accuracy, (if I may use an expression commonly used by Mr. Speaker in another place), here it is. The Daily Mail—I charge them nothing for this gratuitous advertisement—has the headline, "George knocks Wilson for six". But the Daily Mirror could do better than that: "George puts the knife in". That is what it is all about; that is what the Press is concerned with.
Moreover, there have been some personal references in other quarters. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, was doing his best to avoid it—I know him so well; he was seeking to impose a restraint upon himself—but now and again thoughts escaped. So he talked about personal honour. These terms
232
" personal honour "and" credibility "have been bandied about. Noble Lords should be careful. I speak as one with a somewhat long Parliamentary experience, almost 50 years. I can remember what was said about Lloyd George—I do not want to enter into details. It can be recalled what was said about Stanley Baldwin (for whom, by the way, I had a very high regard):"Trust Stanley "—until 1935, when it was understood that he had completely deceived the electorate of this country. Ramsay Macdonald has been persistently denigrated as to credibility: it was not his line of country, according to some people. Over and over again prominent politicians and Prime Ministers have been subjected to criticism of the most harsh character. We ought to be careful. The academic historians know all about it and write about it because they have read about it; I have been through it, and speak from personal experience. One must be careful.
On the question of trouble in the Labour Party, noble Lords should take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said in the course of his speech yesterday afternoon. It was in reference to the Labour Party, when he warned your Lordships that nothing should be done to weaken it, much less destroy it. He was right. Your Lordships might get worse, if anything happened to the Labour Party: be warned in time. Something less moderate, less conciliatory, may come about, and we ought to be careful. In this controversy about whether or not we should enter the Common Market, leave out the personalities. That is what they all say, but immediately they declare their desire to leave out personalities they indulge in them, as we have discovered during the course of this debate, and because of the Press.
We were asked yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, to stand up and be counted. I have stood up for the last 25 years and been counted on this controversy. It goes back much further than the Lord Chancellor's 1951, or what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham. Apart from Cabinet discussions, I can recall when the late Winston Churchill, who was keenly interested in the idea and vision of a united Europe, approached the late Mr. Attlee, who was then Prime Minister, and asked whether

233
the Labour Party would encourage the project. Mr. Attlee sent him to see me because I happened to be Chairman of the Labour Party at the time. Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, came to the War Office, to the room which he had previously occupied as Secretary for War. He pleaded with me to encourage the Executive of the Labour Party to foster this concept of a united Europe. It was all very vague at the time: "supranational authority" and "economic unity", and, in particular, "agricultural policy", which is now apparently acceptable to many people but rejected by others—this was just a vision. Out of courtesy to Mr. Winston Churchill I took it to the Labour Party Executive and they rejected it out of hand, as indeed did the Labour Cabinet. There was some vague discussion about it, something nebulous. Nobody appeared to understand it, and it was rejected. I would say this about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, on this aspect of the question: he has many accomplishments, but I never thought he would adopt the role of astrologer, a subject in which I have no particular interest. He told us that if only we had accepted this vague, nebulous idea thrust upon us by M. Schumann, the world would have been completely re-orientated, Europe would be flourishing and we should be living in luxury. That is just an assumption.
I want to use that idea in order to fortify the stand I take in this matter. I have never objected at any time to trade with European countries, with the erection of tariff barriers, if necessary, and with the withdrawal of tariff barriers and the liberalisation of trade. We are a trading nation—that is a cliché, of course, but it is understandable and accepted. Of course we must trade with them. Therefore, on the economic issue I have never quarrelled. It may be that prices will rise and that there will be an escalation of prices in food and other commodities. That may be, or it may not be: who can tell? How can we foretell the future? Prices may go up, or they may go down. It depends on production, on scarcity and on a variety of other matters. We cannot be sure at all. What we do know is this—and this is really the crux and what I regard as the solar plexus of the problem—that
234
there is the question of whether our institutions are to be dominated and controlled by an undemocratic assembly sited in Brussels, or Bonn, or wherever they may happen to be.
This subject of sovereignty has been played around with, and it becomes almost difficult to understand what they have been talking about. Of course we have had to abandon some of our powers and authority—with NATO, for example. I was associated with the formation of NATO in 1947, 1948 and onwards, and I recognised that we had to give something away; but nothing was irrevocable. We could go in, and we could come out. Go into the European Economic Community and you cannot come out. You are in. The term "irrevocable" is not embodied in the Treaty of Rome, but the term "unlimited" is and it is practically the same thing; you are in. That makes all the difference.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was addressing your Lordships' House, I ventured to interrupt him and he kindly gave way. I asked him to define the term "unity". After all, what are we talking about but European economic unity?—a Community based on unity, where there is general agreement on a great variety of issues and where there is co-ordination and co-operation. That is what we are talking about. But is that what your Lordships are prepared to accept? Because if your Lordships are prepared to accept that, you must accept the consequences. The noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, dismissed the objection that it might affect the European Coal and Steel Community. The Coal and Steel Community has had its ups and downs. Sometimes it has opened pits and steelworks, and sometimes it has closed them, and nobody knows more about closing down pits than the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham. It has become almost an art with him. It is nothing to do with the question of sovereignty. Of course not. The European Coal and Steel Community may go out of existence with the advent of nuclear energy. I may be regarded as a bit of an astrologer when I suggest that it might go out of existence, but it is lust a possibility; put it that way.
When it comes to the question of control and domination—not of economic

235
matters, because trade, tariffs and the rest, the customs union and agriculture, are all trivia, and what might be called "pocket fluff"—I am concerned with the real substance, and that is that control must be effective. Here I should like to mention the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I am sorry that he is not in his place. I have known him as a persistent advocate of British entry into the Common Market. I think, though I do not agree with him, that he may take pride in the fact that he has never deviated in any fashion from his original intention and beliefs. But yesterday he said something which was important, and I advise your Lordships to read the report of his speech. He said, in effect, that in order to make the European Economic Community effective there must be coordination and co-operation, and for that purpose you must have political control. Whether that political control is democratic is another matter. But that is what he said and I agree with him.
From the very outset, that is the line I have taken. From the day when Mr. Harold Macmillan came to another place and announced the intention to approach the countries of the Six with a view to negotiations, that was the line I took—not the economic line, not the food line, not the prices line, but the possibility that our destiny and future, in foreign affairs, defence and the like, could be controlled by somebody outside this country. I am aware of the fact that in matters of defence we sometimes have to give way to the views of, say, the United States and of our other allies. I recognise that. But to abandon our ideas, to abandon our policies, to abandon our destiny, is not something to which I ever could agree.
What I cannot understand is this. Yesterday we had speeches which derided and made a mockery of our institutions. I took a note of some of them, but I do not want to weary your Lordships with them. We are asked for an alternative. Why ask for an alternative? Noble Lords in this House who are associated with industry, such as the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, and others, seem satisfied that British industry can no longer regard itself as efficient; that there is something
236
wrong with management; that the trade unions are not likely to be co-operative; that something has gone wrong with this country. Perhaps I should read what the noble Lord, Lord McFadzean, said yesterday, because it is the whole point of the argument. He said that we have some of the best inventive genius in the world, we have some of the best management staff in the world, and we have some splendid people working on the benches. On the shop floor we have a huge advantage over many countries, because for generations the men have been used to working in that environment and within engineering limits, so that it comes as second nature. We have all that. He then went on to argue that, because of our economic position and because many industrialists have now come to the conclusion that this country is down and out, we must enter the Common Market. I do not follow that argument.
It has been argued by noble Lords that the standard of living is higher in the countries of the Six than in this country. I ask your Lordships to take, for example, Germany. Is their position surprising? Noble Lords should know their history over the past 25 years or so. At the end of the last war, what happened? Germany was defeated and we gained a victory. But something else happened. Germany had to engage in reconstruction. Germany was encouraged to undertake that task by the Dawes Loan and the Young Loan and eventually by the Marshall Plan. We had none of those. We had Lend-Lease during the war, but that was terminated when the peace came. That was the reason why we had to obtain credit from the United States of America to the tune of £1,000 million. The noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, was not in the Cabinet then—it was long afterwards that he emerged—but I was.
LORD ROBENS OF WOLDINGHAM: I knew about it.
LORD SHINWELL: Of course he was bound to know about it. It appeared in the newspapers. I know that the noble Lord can read. But let us not be controversial. I do not see the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, here, but may I say this? I may be violating the Official Secrets Act, but what does that matter? I understand that the Tower

237
is a very accommodating place, so why worry? We do not vote in the Cabinet and we did not do it then, but when the Prime Minister collected the voices, despite all the argument by Ernest Bevin, Stafford Cripps, Hugh Dalton and all the others, Nye Bevan and myself opposed it resolutely. We were right.
This brings me to the point which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, made about the majority. Of course he has a majority here. He would not expect it to be otherwise. Your Lordships' House, being what it is, with no responsibility to constituents or to anybody but themselves, noble Lords are entitled to express their opinions. But the minority is sometimes right, and nobody knows that better than the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, himself. He has been in the minority. What I am saying is personal, but it is not offensive. I can remember an occasion when the noble and learned Lord was very depressed indeed. He was in a minority. There was something going on in the Conservative Party. He was in a terrible state of depression and I said to him what I say to Britain now: "You will recover". And so he has. After all, even a political opponent has compassion. If we have any guts, Britain will recover. I can understand the position of noble Lords who are industrial tycoons—if I may use that expression—industrialists of all kinds occupying managerial positions, but I cannot understand the aristocrats in the House, the descendants of kings, whose families were associated as advisers to Queen Elizabeth and succeeding monarchs, being ready to enter Europe. For what? For a higher standard of living and to get a share of a bigger market. Well, well, well! It is enough to make their ancestors turn in their graves.
So I stand up to be counted. I make no apology for my views. I want to trade with every country of the Six, if they do not shut us out completely. But, make no bones about it, my Lords, they cannot shut us out completely, if we stay out, they cannot shut us out completely. There are things they want from us and there are things we want from them. Of course there are difficulties about standing on our own feet, just as it is admitted that there are going to be difficulties in the short-term if we go in. That has been admitted
238
by noble Lords who are experts on the subject. And as for the long term, who can tell what will happen? It is a gamble, a speculation, a risk—not even a calculated risk. So we may have to suffer a bit. But one would imagine—and this is my final observation—that there was something very serious, something depressing, something disastrous happening in this country. There are hundreds of thousands of tourists in London from other countries, but there are hundreds of thousands of our people in other countries on holiday. Besides, I read that the dockers are going to get £50 or £60 a week—more than I get myself. I read that we still have Rolls-Royce, we still have Rio Tinto, we still have the B.B.C. and I.T.V., we still have Leyland's, we still have genius, we still have character and quality. These are all cliches that I am indulging in, and everybody is familiar with these facts.
So why do we not have a little guts and say, "Yes, we will trade with the world"? It is our destiny to trade with the world. But to abandon ourselves, lock, stock and barrel, hook, line and sinker to the countries of the Six—oh, no! We like you, the Germans, and we like you, the French, though I do not like them so much, because I have had dealings with them as Minister of Defence. They have contracted out of NATO and for the Government then to come along and talk about promoting peace in Europe and its acting as a deterrent, is just an absurdity. Moreover, there is no unity in Europe. There it is. My advice to your Lordships is to stay out, to be firm and resolute, to go on fighting, and even suffering. In other words, I say to your Lordships that Britain is still great. If Britain became greater by entering Europe, it could be greater still by putting up a fight. I wonder what kind of flag will be flying in Europe if we enter the Common Market? Will it be the Union Jack? No. Will it be the Tricolour? No. It will be the skull and crossbones—and that I will not accept.
My Lords, I am not going to ask for indulgence at the end of a speech of this character. Why should I? Nor am I going to apologise for being controversial. That was my intention. Moreover, when I am told, as I have been told so often in the course of this debate, that we anti-Common Marketeers are defeated by 33

239
to 1, I realise that I have not had time to make a complete speech. I warn noble Lords: do not get any wrong ideas. We do not reflect opinion in this country. There is not a single noble Lord, whether on one side of the House or on the other, who could claim that he could go to any constituency in the country and get a majority for entering the Common Market. It is recorded in the Press today that Mr. Prior, the Minister of Agriculture, when a referendum was held in his own constituency, was defeated by more than two to one on a huge vote. That is enough for me, and I hope it is enough for your Lordships.
4.52 p.m.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, may I first follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, by paying tribute to the maiden speech which we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham? Lord Robens, the best Chairman of the National Coal Board we have not got (I say that without any disrespect to his successor, who we hope will have as great success as he had), was a Minister whom I did not have the chance to serve because I went to his Ministry of Fuel and Power only after a change of Government. But there, in the Ministry of Fuel and Power, when there was a little local trouble in another place and a Conservative Minister was persecuted a little by the "fuel furies", we hacks back there in the Department did not mind at all. What we feared was the terror of Lord Robens, as he then was not, when he rose from the Opposition Benches with that gift of oratory and persuasiveness that we have heard with such pleasure this afternoon.
As to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I feel very humble in following him, and though he is not listening to me at the moment I want to tell him that nothing I say is intended to be in any way superior. On the contrary, as an old "hack" in the Ministry of Fuel and Power I can say that he left a reputation, which means that all old "Minfupovians" respect him and it is in a mood of respect that I must tell him and your Lordships that I absolutely decline to take his advice, which he so emphatically and curtly gave us, that we should stay out of the Common Market. I have very
240
great respect for the long tradition that the noble Lord has of sustained opposition to anything of this kind. I did not follow his argument when he rejected any evidence that Lord Robens produced from experience in the Coal and Steel Community. It seems to me that the Communities which we have asked to join, and which I hope we do join very soon, are three Communities, and one of them is the Coal and Steel Community. While Lord Robens was able to tell us, out of his experience, how little sovereignty was in fact lost by the members of that Community, what he did not have time to tell us was how much more advantageous to this country it would have been if he had been a member of the Council which determined policy in that Community. That seems to me a piece of solid evidence which we cannot reject when we ask ourselves: what are we giving up, and what risks are we running, if we join all three Communities?
I listened with very great interest, and again with humility rather than with a sense of superiority, to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said when he addressed the House, but I could not understand why he felt that we should be rejecting the potential of this great new multi-racial Commonwealth of 700 million or 800 million citizens of the world if we went into Europe. Quite frankly, I could not follow the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he appealed to us to have guts, suggesting that by going into the Common Market we were showing a lack of guts, and that it would be the skull and cross-bones that would be flying at the masthead if we did go in. With great respect to bosh those speakers, I passionately believe that they are wrong in both these respects.
I have been, and still am, a believer in the Commonwealth, and I have been anxious about the Commonwealth over the last 25 years, during which I have been wanting us to go into Europe, and in particular into the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom, which has not so far been mentioned in this debate and which again was not a popular cause to sponsor as a "hack" in the Ministry of Fuel and Power. I had a little say, but I was always in a minority of one or two. But as one who wanted to go into Europe, and who regretted that we were not in at the beginning, I was anxious lest, in

241
going in, we were going to jeopardise the opportunities that were opening up to us, as the new Commonwealth unfolded, to make our contribution to the world, through the Commonwealth. I have come to the conclusion, for what it is worth, in all humility, that we are not going to jeopardise the big contribution which the Commonwealth can make to the world and which we can make through the Commonwealth if we go into Europe—and may I very briefly say why?
The characteristic of the modern Commonwealth, my Lords, surely is the great pattern of nation States, utterly free and independent but linked by a whole pattern of roads and bridges; and there are no road blocks at the other side of the Commonwealth members. In other words, if I may change the metaphor, if you think of the present members of the Commonwealth as a great orchestra—the brass perhaps coming from Africa, the woodwind from Asia, the fiddles (we will not say who the fiddlers are) and Britain playing the continuo part to fill in the awkward silences—there is no reason why any member of the Commonwealth orchestra should not play in any other ensemble. This is exactly what they do, as the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, said. Australia plays in an ensemble with Japan and Indonesia, and to some extent Germany; Canada plays with the United States; the Organisation of African Unity is an orchestra in which our African members of the Commonwealth often play, and so on. It is because each member can play in any other ensemble it wishes, that there is no reason in the world, in my opinion, why we should not play in the European Communities without surrendering our faith in the Commonwealth or, as it were, contracting out of the great future which I believe the Commonwealth has.
But some of my friends say: what about the less developed countries? Are we not going to let those members of the Commonwealth down if we join this European Community where the French, the critics say, bullied the other members into allowing some associated status for their ex-Colonies but where it is going to be most unpleasant for our associated States, particularly the Asian ones, if not the African ones, if all we can give them is something as a member of the Community instead of what we might give
242
them as a member of the Commonwealth? Here again, I am sincere in asking your Lordships to accept that I do not believe that to be true. If we have the will, we can do more for the less developed countries—in particular those of the Commonwealth; but those outside it, too—if we go inside the Community and become a part of its policy making; if we help to use the European Development Fund in ways consistent with our ideas of the partnership, between the richer and the poorer countries, which must be made real if, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, we are to avoid terrible troubles ahead.
If we do that, let us take heart from the fact that, whatever may have happened at the beginning of the European Economic Community, and whatever truth there may be in the criticism that it was originally liable to be inward-looking, to be not so interested in the world outside and to be more interested in making the members themselves richer, over these last twelve years the record of what the Community and its members have done for the less-developed countries has been very good, and increasingly good. In fact trade has increased between the less-developed countries and the Community faster and on a larger scale than trade between those same less-developed countries and the U.S.A., and faster and bigger than the increase between those less-developed countries and the United Kingdom. It is not too bad a record, if I may put it that way. In fact, Holland and Belgium and France are all doing more in what might be called aid for the less-developed countries than the United Kingdom itself; and all the members of the Community have already reached that target of 1 per cent. of the gross national product, if you include the total flows from both the private and the public sectors.
I believe that we can do better by the less-developed world if we ourselves have an increasing will to that end, for that is indispensable; and if we carry that conviction into the Common Market in all humility (not assuming that they have not done well or that we know more) through our great experience of this kind of partnership and nation-building and help through trade in particular, but aid also, and technical assistance. I believe that going into Europe in this institutional

243
sense will make it more possible for us within that framework to do what I passionately believe this country and the West must do for the less wealthy two-thirds of the world. I wondered also whether going into Europe would mean that we had to weaken our links with the U.S.A. Again, this is a matter of faith, but I do not believe that those links need be weakened. I believe that one of the contributions that we can make to a more civilised world is to help the Community of Europe to be more sensible about the U.S.A. and to help form a Grand Alliance between the U.S.A. and Europe for the benefit of the less-developed world.
My Lords, may I pay one personal tribute which I do not think has been paid so far, to those who got so near to the point where we can choose to go into Europe on acceptable terms? We have paid tributes (and all would do so) to our negotiators and, in particular, to the Chancellor of the Duchy; but let there be a word said in praise of our Ambassador in Paris, Mr. Christopher Soames. That was a key post; and it was Mr. Harold Wilson who spotted that it was a key post and who invited an ex-Tory Minister to fill it. How well he has done in preparation for Mr. Heath's visit to M. Pompidou and in all these intricate relations between our negotiators in Brussels, Luxembourg and Paris! I pay tribute, too, to all our missions in the Six countries, our Ambassadors there and their staff. I would also pay tribute to my old friends in Whitehall, if ever there was a case of consultation between the Heads of so many Departments in order to produce briefs for both the last Government and for this one, the briefs which were the raw material out of which the negotiations have come!
My Lords, having made that short-term point may I end with a rather longer one. Charlemagne was mentioned as having created Europe. In Homer's opinion, Europe came into existence in Greek mythology very much longer ago than Charlemagne. Europa was a very beautiful lady. In the debate yesterday there was much talk of marriages of convenience, of affection and love as represented by Britain and Europe. Here it was no question of marriage; but Zeus, the all
244
powerful, fell in love with Europa. Perhaps with some imagination of what John Bull might one day be, he disguised himself and took the form of a bull to woo, and to woo successfully, and to consummate his love for Europa. Out of that—and this is no laughing matter—came Minos and that whole great Minoan civilisation which goes back such a long way.
I suggest seriously that there is now a moment when Britain and Europe can mark the beginning of a new phase in that civilisation which Europe has done much to create but which, as I am sure Lord Soper would agree, is something which is much wider than Europe and is a world civilisation. I believe myself that we are asked whether to go in or not to a new chapter in the civilisation of the world. For my part I shall go in "un-Whipped", whoever else is "Whipped".
5.7 p.m.
LORD BLAKE: My Lords, I hope I may crave the indulgence which is traditionally accorded to those who address your Lordships for the first time. I should also like to offer an apology for any seeming discourtesy in the fact that I shall not be here for the debate to-morrow. I have an excuse not open to the noble Lord, Lord Robens: I entered into an engagement well before I had any idea that I should have the privilege of becoming a Member of your Lordships' House.
My own field of study has been history. I am not an economist, a financial expert or a legal expert. My field has been modern history. I am the last to argue that one can draw any clear lessons from history. I would not wish to resemble the immortal professor in a Kingsley Amis novel who was heard to pick up the departmental telephone and say, "History speaking". History speaks with many voices and in a very confusing vocabulary. I have little doubt that just as the pro-Marketeers, of whom I am one, can adduce historical arguments to support their cause, so, too, can the anti-Marketeers. But there is one thing of which I am convinced and it is this. We ought to make up our minds, and all history shows that we should, on the big general questions involved and not on the small print. It is the big general question which will matter in the eventual

245
perspective of history and which will justify, if it is justified at all, the title of the "Great Debate".
Disraeli in speaking in another place on the subject of the Indian Mutiny once said:
" The rise and fall of empires are not affairs of greased cartridges."
The issues involved in joining the European Community are not in the end a matter of the price of butter or of rump steak. Of course these things are not to be overlooked; of course they play their part in the argument; but they are not going to be the things which future generations will take account of in judging whether we were wise or foolish to join or not to join the Common Market.
My Lords, the last occasion I think when in time of peace, as opposed to times of decisions for war, that Britain was confronted with a similar major choice, a clear question of yes or no to a definite issue at all comparable to that which confronts us to-day was when a Conservative Government under Sir Robert Peel repealed the Corn Laws in 1846. That decision established the system of Free Trade in which the country was destined to be the greatest industrial power in the world for the next 70 years. Arguments of the sort we hear to-day were used at that time about prices and costs. There was also a great deal of recrimination about who had said what to whom, when, and what promises had been made. But those are not the things that we remember to-day. We do not remember what Peel said about the price of a loaf of bread, or what Disraeli said about the rate of agricultural rents. It is rather what they said about the broad prospects of their country. Was its greatness dependent on the landed interests or on industry? In the jargon of the time, was the field of corn or the field of coal to prevail?
No doubt the issues which confront us are very different to-day, but it has been alleged that the present Government are acting in a way which is quite out of consonance with the tradition adopted by Peel and his Government at that time. It is of course true that Peel's policy resulted in cheaper food, and that one of the main fears of those who are against joining the Common Market is that it will result in dearer food, or rather dearer food. But in a wider sense I think the situation is
246
not quite like that. In the time of Peel food entered into the cost of living to the extent of something like 80 per cent., and now it is only 20 per cent. to 25 per cent. When the great relaxation of trade restrictions took place in the 1840s, those who favoured that course were thinking in terms of the economic prosperity of the nation as a whole, and of the great impetus which would be given to the nation's economy. It was the opponents of the repeal of the Corn Laws who took the narrower, the more timorous, the more traditional, more parochial and restrictive attitude; indeed if I may say so, a more xenophobic attitude.
If Peel, the greatest 19th century Conservative statesman, had been alive to-day, I believe that he would have been in favour of the Common Market as the bolder, more expansionist course to take The decision of the present Prime Minister and the present Conservative Government is very far from being out of character or contrary to the natural ethos or tradition of the Conservative Party in that respect. Having said that of Peel, I do not attempt to hazard a guess of what Disraeli would have done. I believe that, as in 1846, the future lies in the bolder, more adventurous and more challenging policy. I believe that the fears entertained—I am sure genuinely and sincerely entertained—about the consequences of joining the Common Market will prove to be as groundless as the fears of those who dreaded Free Trade proved a century and a quarter ago.
Of course the Common Market is not a panacea to cure all our economic ills. In the end one is involved in guess work, in a hunch, an act of faith and a balancing of probabilities. I can only say that, although I do not believe we shall be ruined in a dramatic way if we do not go into the E.E.C., I do believe there is a high probability that we will do much better if we go in, and that our experience will be the same or similar to that of the separate countries which constituted the Six when they originally formed their union. But, having said that, and having earlier said that the price of butter and steak are not the fundamental issues, I must in fairness to the other side agree that a great many people are uneasy about entry into the Common Market, and do fear precisely those dangers of immense price rises and other disagreeable

247
changes of which we have heard a great deal in the last two days.
I was very struck by what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said late in the debate last night, when he expressed the view that the battle of the Common Market in Parliament had been won, or largely won, but the battle as far as the public was concerned had not been won at all. This I think is profoundly true. Although of course public opinion may change during the summer, it would be idle to pretend that it is favourable at the moment to entry into the Common Market. I think one of the most important things for the Government is to try to do all in their power to recognise that fears which are, as I believe and the Government must believe, largely based on unreal assumptions, may none the less be very real fears, and to do all they can to place the true facts before the public.
It would be a calamity if we entered the E.E.C. torn, divided, suspicious, resentful and fearful. Much of the good effects which I believe will flow from it would be greatly reduced, if not diminished almost to nothing, if that were to be the case. I should like to refer very briefly to two, if I may so call them, non-economic—indeed political—fears which exercise a great many thoughtful people. The first was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud who spoke just before me. That is the feat that the E.E.C. may be a rich man's club and that by joining it we shall become a selfish, greedy, introverted nation, heedless of our responsibilities to the developing countries of Asia and Africa and in particular those of the Commonwealth. I do not believe there is any danger of that. I think this fear may have had a sounder basis in 1961, but it is important to realise how immensely the Community itself has changed in the last 10 years.
The other danger, which has not been discussed to any extent in your Lordships' House but which I have seen mentioned often elsewhere, is that the political systems of the Six are less stable, less reliable than ours, that France has twice been on the verge of civil war in the last 15 years, that Italy is in a state of political turmoil, that democracy in Germany is but skin deep. I am not sure
248
when we look at Northern Ireland that it is for us to cast the first stone, if I may use a perhaps unfortunate metaphor in that connection, but I believe that in general political stability, the capacity to accommodate our institutions to peaceful change in Parliament, is one of our great contributions to modern Western civilisation. I like to think that our adherence to the Community will enhance all the stabilising tendencies in the Community, rather than that we shall be convulsed by some sort of revolution or anarchy from the Continent. I like to hope, and I do hope, that they will gain something good from us rather than that we shall catch some infection or malady from them. This of course is the hope that is shared by a great many of those in the Community itself who want us, and deeply want us, to join them.
My Lords, it would be quite wrong for me to detain you at any length when so many noble Lords of far superior experience and wisdom than mine intend to address your Lordships' House. I should like to end simply by saying this. We are in too much danger as a country of under-estimating our own high qualities, and of forgetting the immense respect and prestige which we still possess in spite of everything that has been said outside. I believe that we are in danger of thinking too much in terms of the short-term and basically minor difficulties and annoyances which joining the E.E.C. may cause us rather than of the enormous advantages which we ourselves shall bring to the Community and which the Community, with those advantages, will in its turn bring to us. We should not under-estimate what we can do to shape the Community or overlook the fact that the Community, with us in it, is going to be a very different affair from what is with us out of it.
At some time about the beginning of this century, acute observers saw that power was passing from the old European-based, seaborne empires to the great continental, land-based nations. This is what the last 30 years have seen taking place at extraordinary speed—America, Russia, China. Europe ought to be in that league. I believe that, with the further development of E.E.C., and probably greater steps towards political unity (and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn), this may come about;

249
but it will not come about on a satisfactory basis, if we remain out of the Community. My Lords, much has been said about sovereignty. I believe that our sovereignty, in any real sense of the word, will be more effective if we join than if we do not. It is a challenging opportunity and an exciting one. It would be a tragedy if, having lost it twice despite ourselves, we should miss it yet again, because of ourselves.
5.22 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I have three separate congratulations to offer. The first and most important is to the noble Lord, Lord Blake, to whom we have all listened with so much interest. It is not surprising that we have been interested in what he said, because he is a man of great distinction in the academic world and of great experience. He is, as we all know, the leading student of the Conservative Party in its full flowering. It will be interesting to listen and to read eventually his first-hand studies of the Conservative Party at—but I must not be controversial at the present time. He is, of course, from the "other" university. I think that must be his fault, because I understand that his roots are in East Anglia, and, possibly for that reason, there is running through all he says a great element of realism. We look forward greatly to hearing more from him. Congratulations also to my noble friend Lord Robens of Woldingham—a shocking dereliction of duty, if I may say so in his absence, that he has sat for ten years before allowing us to hear him, although we have had an opportunity of listening to him elsewhere. Now that the ice has been broken we hope to hear more from him and more frequently. My third congratulations come oddly from me and from this side of the House. They are to Her Majesty's Government for the progress they have made to date with these vitally important and extremely difficult negotiations.
Without any hesitation, I align myself with those who say that these conditions are acceptable and are every bit as acceptable as I should have expected, and even hoped, that a Labour Government would have achieved. From that, there is little need for me to say that I am an avowed proponent of the E.E.C. I will not go at any great length into the
250
reasons why that is so, but I think it is only right to say briefly what those reasons are. First, I believe that an enlarged Europe is part of the general tide of events. The movement is there; it has been in that direction over the centuries. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Blake, I will not embark on any historical looking backward. But we are now moving with the tide—and we all know what happens to people who swim against it. We must move with it willingly and happily.
The second reason is because I am conceited—chauvinist if you like—about Europe. I believe that Europe has a great deal to offer to the whole world. I believe that a world that is dominated solely by the two present great Powers, the United States and the Soviet Union (and in due course perhaps sharing that with a third super-Power in the shape of China) will be a worse world, in every sense of the word, than a world from which the voice of Europe, with all its traditions, all that it stands for and all that it has to offer, is absent. I think it is essential for the welfare of those who come after us that Europe's voice should be heard. I am also sufficiently chauvinist to believe that Europe is a poorer place without Britain. We have something to offer which other countries in Europe cannot offer, and they have much to offer which we cannot offer. Between us we can create a power for good in the world which cannot be equalled by my other great Power. Those are my basic reasons for being a European.
Now I shall run the risk of doing what the noble Lord, Lord Blake avoided doing, and "talk about butter"—not specifically but about some of the more detailed problems which have been issues and still are issues in this debate. I do so because some of these matters have not yet been mentioned in this debate; and though I imagine that most noble Lords are well aware of the facts I shall bring forward, I think it would be unrealistic of us if we confined ourselves to the wider generalities, basic though they are, and forgot the problems which are exercising the minds of many people outside this Chamber.
First of all, there is agriculture. The National Farmers' Union have come out in favour of entry into the Community.

251
With all respect to the N.F.U., I do not put a great deal of stress on that, though it is worth mentioning. This is not surprising because there can be no doubt at all that farmers in Britain will be better off, in the main, under the Community's prices and under the Community's system than they are at the present time. To give three examples, wheat under the guaranteed price at the present time brings to the producer £32.60 per ton, whereas with the Common Agricultural Policy it would be £42.80—approximately 35 per cent. more. Barley is £29 per ton to-day, but the new system would bring the producer £37.90. The price of pool milk, which is the important thing for the actual milk producer, is 19p per gallon, compared with 23·5p in the Community. So, in the main, for agricultural commodities there will be a real improvement for farmers. There will be certain farmers who will be worse off, or rather certain aspects of farming will be worse off—specialised pork and specialised poultry producers will have a much harder time: there is no doubt about that. But it is worth remembering that the prices of pork and chicken in Europe to-day is little, if any, higher than it is in this country, and there is a very rapid expansion of both those industries, not only of the backyard farmer but of the specialist pig producer and poultry producer. So there are farmers in Europe under this policy who find it worth while expanding and investing and I believe that our farmers are good enough to be able to meet that challenge. Even with those people I have no very great fears that the situation is going to be unduly difficult for them.
My Lords, you might say, "That is all very well, but what about the food? If the farmer is going to get so much for what he produces, what about the price to the consumer?" This argument has gone on for many months, for years in fact. We know that the price of food will go up, but we do not know by how much it will go up; nobody will know that. But there is one other factor which we do know, and where there are statistics to help us, and that is how much of these foodstuffs is consumed in the countries of the Community in spite of these admittedly higher prices. I do not think that it is without significance to see that in the year 1968–69, the last year for which statistics
252
are available, France and Germany both consumed more meat than we did, in spite of higher prices, and Belgium was very close behind. All members of the Community consumed more fish than we did; the Netherlands consumed more milk and cream; all members consumed more cheese, and even with butter, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Germany consumed as much or more than we did and ail consumed considerably more vegetables and fruit—expensive, and on the whole attractive products. Therefore, my Lords, it is not right to say that automatically by adopting the Common Agricultural Policy we are condemning the people of this country to a lower standard of living or less food, or less food of high quality or variety. That is disproved by the figures.
Nor is it right to say that the British farmer in certain special areas is going to have a great deal more difficulty, and that many of our particular grants and methods of assistance will not be available. There are many systems which are going on in different countries of the Common Market which are specifically designed to help farmers in special areas. The outstanding example, of course, is in the southern part of Italy where special funds are provided for helping this very depressed and backward area. There are many other special grants. There are cheap credit arrangements for farmers; there are even tax concessions in Germany, specific capital grants for buildings and even for the acquisition of sheep in the case of France. There are many examples already in existence where farmers in special areas of difficulty get special treatment, so I believe that we should have no fear in this country that those areas which we have traditionally helped and which we wish to go on helping will be in any way harmed by our acceptance of the Common Agricultural Policy.
Far more important, to my mind, than the effect of food and of agriculture in Britain is the effect on the overseas territories. We have frequently heard, not during this debate but on other occasions, the acusation levelled at the Community that it is inward-looking and that it ignores the developing countries, whereas in this country we are outward-looking and we help the developing countries in a generous and effective manner.

253
I rather wish that that were true, but of course it is not. Again, there are figures to show what has happened. If you look at the net resources flowing from Community members to developing countries and compare them with what happened between 1957 and 1969 in their aid to developing countries compared with ours, your Lordships will see that they have increased their aid by 85 per cent. whereas we have increased our aid by 9½ per cent.
So much for the Community being inward-looking. If you look at it in terms of contribution per head of the population, you will find that they give considerably more. I will not weary your Lordships with the actual figures, but they give considerably more in every individual country than we do ourselves. As a percentage of the gross national product, for instance, Germany gives 1·33 per cent. compared with our 1·04 per cent. and the only country of the Community which gives less is Italy which is only 0·01 per cent. behind us. Therefore, I think we have good reason for thinking that by going into the Community we may well be stimulated to rise to their heights and to give rather more in actual cash aid than we have been doing in the past.
It is not only in cash that their record is superior to ours; it is in people too. Noble Lords know the importance of people when it comes to aid. The number of students and trainees who came into the Community in 1969 is over three and a half times as many as the number which came into the United Kingdom; and the number of experts and volunteers who have gone out from the Community is in the same proportion, three and a half to four times as many compared with this country, so on a per head basis their record is significantly better than ours. So it is in whatever statistics you care to look at. If you look, for instance, at imports from developing countries, in 1958 our imports were just under 4 billion dollars from the developing countries compared with the Community which was about 7 billion dollars. Ours rose by 1970 from 4 billion dollars to 5 billion dollars, a rise of only 25 per cent.; theirs rose from 7 billion dollars to 16 billion dollars, a rise of over 100 per cent. That is what their imports are from the developing countries, and to-day Germany
254
is investing more in the underdeveloped world than is the United States; and Italy is investing more than we are ourselves. So in investment and in imports they again are superior to us.
And, my Lords, it is not only what they are doing but what they would like to do. The Readers Digest carried out a survey of this in 1969 and asked the usual representative sample of people in different countries, "Are you for or against using part or taxes to help poorer countries outside of Europe?" The percentage of people against, who did not want to use their taxes to help outside Europe, was as follows: Italy, 18 per cent.; Belgium and Germany, 24 per cent.; Holland, 29 per cent.; France, 33 per cent. and the United Kingdom, 51 per cent. So it is not only just what they do, but the intentions of the ordinary people are without doubt more outward looking than are the intentions of the ordinary people in this country. Many of your Lordships, I know, have a great interest in this, and certainly many of my friends on this side of the House have a particular interest in it. If your interest is in helping underdeveloped countries by buying more from them, by investing more, by giving more aid and more technical assistance and by persuading the ordinary voter of the country that this is the right thing to do, we have to admit that the Community is in every respect superior to us in all these matters. If we enter, there can be no question of our saying, "We shall become more inward looking, we shall abandon those countries that are dependent on us, whether in the Commonwealth or other parts of the developing world". We shall be stimulated to greater efforts.
That is the position as it is to-day. That does not mean to say that I am complacent either about our own agricultural policy, our own overseas aid policy or about the Common Agricultural Policy and Overseas Aid Policy of the Six. I think there is a great deal that should and must be done to improve both those matters, and I hope that it will be one of the prime jobs of the United Kingdom representatives, when they get to Brussels, to help to reframe the agricultural policy (which is admitted on all sides to be had, to be ineffectual and to have many faults) and to stimulate and reframe the

255
policies for giving aid in every respect to overseas countries.
I would suggest that there are two or three things that we ought to do and to which I hope we shall be able to get our future partners of the Community to subscribe. First, our agricultural policy in the enlarged Community cannot be run "hand to mouth" nor, as it is in this country, with an Annual Price Review. That is not a long enough period in these days of long-term investment, whether it be in science, seed breeding or in actual agricultural investment. There must be a much longer-term policy. We must strive for a five-year plan—if that is not too reminiscent of other countries which we have not always liked very much and of their ways of altering their economies. So we shall have long-term security for our producers and those associated with them. Secondly—and I believe that both we and the members of the Community are moving towards this, but we must accelerate it—we must separate very clearly the economic from the social problems. We must make quite sure that when we are helping the hill farmers in Wales or the Auvergne, or the farmers in Southern Italy or wherever it may be, we are helping them for social reasons; in other words, because they are members of the Community and not because we particularly want what may be the high-cost food that they can only produce there. We must give them social and not economic aid. Our economic aid must be directed towards those products which in the long term will be economic to produce, not high-cost products which in proper free competition could never compete with the outside world. These are things which, among others, we must include in our discussions concerning the new agricultural policy.
When it come; to aid, there again we must think far more in terms of long-term contracts and security for the overseas producer; and we must learn from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement—an admirable concept which I believe we can show to our partners in the Community as having advantages and with which, I believe, in certain respects they will be prepared to go along. We must also make certain that our internal agricultural policies are integrated with
256
our import policies from oveseas and that they are not run in watertight compartments so that domestic agriculture is dealt with on one side and our overseas policy on another. In the overseas world they are, above all, producers of primary products, just as the farmers of Europe are, and there should be an integrated production programme, gaining benefits from the natural facilities of both areas and giving benefits to those who actually produce. Those, my Lords, are some of the things we shall be able to help the Six with when we become members, and as a result of that I believe that we shall have a better Europe and a better world.
I would say to my noble friend Lord Soper, if he were here, that I believe we are going to make far more progress towards World Government and also, so far as both of us are concerned, towards practical Socialism—whatever Party political labels may be attached—by showing the Community ideas of this kind which we can help to put across than by saying, "We will have nothing to do with you; you are not a World Government; you are only a nation State, albeit a rather larger nation; you are only a rich man's club, not interested in poverty or human values". Even if that were true—which it is not—it would still be right for us to do our best to improve matters rather than standing out on one side and saying, "We are good and we shall have nothing to do with you".

SHERIFFS COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (NEWHAVEN BRIDGE) BILL ETON RURAL DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL HARINGEY CORPORATION BILL HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [H.L.] CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.] EAST SUFFOLK COUNTY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
STOCKPORT CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to the Amendments considered and agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
5.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Investment and Building Grants Act,

Statute Law (Repeals) Act,

Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations Act,

Land Registration and Land Charges Act,

Law Reform (Jurisdiction in Delict) (Scotland) Act,

Pensions (Increase) Act,

Pool Competitions Act,

Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act,

Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act,

Prevention of Oil Pollution Act,

Mineral Workings (Offshore Installations) Act,

Tribunals and Inquiries Act,

Anguilla Act,

Diplomatic and other Privileges Act,

Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Act,

Friendly Societies Act,

Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act,

258

Lanarkshire County Council Order Confirmation Act,

Lerwick Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

London Transport Act,

Kesteven County Council Act,

Bradford Corporation Act,

Bristol Corporation Act,

Teesside Corporation (General Powers) (No. 2) Act,

British Railways Act,

Hertfordshire County Council Act,

Humber Bridge Act,

Greater London Council (Money) Act,

D. & J. Fowler Limited and Associated Company Act,

Stockport Corporation Act,

Haringey Corporation Act,

East Sussex County Council (Newhaven Bridge) Act,

Eton Rural District Council Act,

Cornwall County Council Act,

Bristol Corporation (West Dock) Act,

East Suffolk County Council Act,

Mersey Docks and Harbour Act,

Trent River Authority (General Powers) Act.

UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
5.48 p.m.
Debate resumed.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, as the first member of the Episcopal Bench who has spoken during this debate, it is my privilege to express congratulations, first, to the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham. I gladly do that, for two reasons: first, because Woldingham happens to be a village in my diocese, and, secondly, because I always think of Lord Robens whenever in the Psalter once a month I am called upon to say "Who shall deliver us from this wicked pit?" Secondly, I should like to extend congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Blake. I was a humble student of history when I was at the other place, but I am

259
a graduate of Christ's College, Cambridge, and I think perhaps it is fitting that I should be one of the first to extend congratulations to such a distinguished member of Christ Church, Oxford.
The White Paper deals mainly with the political and economic arguments involved. These are, of course, of very great importance, but I doubt whether a member of this Bench has much right to express his opinions upon them, or to claim any knowledge superior to that of anyone else in the country—perhaps that goes for a great many of us, too. So far as I see it, there are four points which those who have addressed this Chamber with specialised knowledge have put forward in advocating entry into the Common Market. They say, first, there is to be an enlarged free market for our goods; secondly, that there is to be an increase of our competitive ability vis-à-vis the United States, Japan and the U.S.S.R.; thirdly, that there is to be a rising standard of living for Britons with increased power in the money market and in international finance. Then, fourthly, they say that at a time when the Commonwealth countries are forming their own regional arrangements, independently of us, to their own advantage, and when we are now exporting to the Commonwealth 23 per cent., compared to 42 per cent. in 1960, we have an opportunity to continue to develop our economic relationships with the E.E.C. I find our exports to the E.E.C. an interesting figure, for they have jumped from 15 to 22 per cent. between 1960 and 1970. There has been a comparable decrease with the Commonwealth.
Those are four points that have been put to us both here and in another place. As a layman in these matters, I think they should be very seriously considered. While I thought the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made a most amusing, rumbustuous and pantomine speech, he did nothing whatever to bring me to think that I should attach less importance to those four matters which have been stressed so seriously by speakers from all parts of this House. If I had a vote, if I were not a Member of: this House, I should be inclined to vote in favour of joining the Common Market, and of supporting the present Government, and indeed the last Government when they were trying to
260
take us into the Common Market some years ago.
But there are issues other than those four economic ones which ought to be considered. The British Council of Churches, which represents Christians of all points of view in this country, has put forward a document which I welcome and which deserves the most serious consideration. To summarise the reasons which the Council puts before its readers for joining the Common Market, they come under three headings. The first is the reconciliation of European enmities or, putting it another way, that we now have an opportunity of turning Europe into a family instead of a group of warring communities. The second is that here is an opportunity for Europe, as Europe, to consider responsibly the stewardship of its resources; and the third is that here is an opportunity for Europe to enrich the rest of mankind.
Let us look briefly at those three points. I do not mean to detain your Lordships long, as I know how many speakers there are to follow. I suppose there are few of us who have not suffered as a result of one or other of the two world wars. I lost my father in the First World War and other relatives both in that war and in the Second World War. In this I am no different from most of your Lordships. One of the things that most of us who have been through these experiences are determined about is that a situation in which many thousands of people were killed in what was almost a fraternal war shall not occur again. It is no good thinking that we in England are outside Europe. Those two wars have taught us that we are inseparably bound up with Europe, and it is necessary to recognise this fact and appreciate its implications. Whatever happens we must ask ourselves this question: will the opportunity given to us now help or hinder a situation in which a third world war between European States is made more difficult? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blake, will know much more history than I do, yet I wonder whether he will agree with me when I say that, with France and Germany in the E.E.C., the chances of war between those two countries are infinitely less than they were before. And praise God for that!
Secondly, the old European disunity and insistence upon nationalism has shown

261
itself to be disastrous, not merely politically and militarily, but also economically. Perhaps one who sits on these Benches may be permitted to say that, whatever may have been the immediate causes of the Reformation, and however justified we may or may not have been in taking the steps that we did in the Tudor period, there were certain losses; and one of the losses was that we broke away from European Christendom. That was a great disaster, because Christendom is much more than ecumenical relationships between Churches: it is a whole culture. I hope that, as a result of going into Europe, we may be able to share together our common European inheritance. We must think of ourselves first as Europeans and not as Frenchmen or Britishers.
Thirdly, entry into Europe should facilitate our sharing in the complete reorganisation of world trade. We simply cannot afford poverty in any part of the world, and to deal with this agreements are necessary with regard to sugar, oil, seeds, vegetable fats, and a great many other items, with the less favoured countries. We must come to an agreement with the underdeveloped areas, whether they are in South Europe, North Africa or elsewhere in the world. We can do this as a European unit better than we can do it on a national basis.
I know that there are doubts; there are doubts in my mind. As the White Paper says, this is an act of faith, and the future depends upon the people who are going to lead us. There could be disastrous mistakes. If this experiment were handled wrongly, Europe could become a large factory. There is one way of reading the White Paper which suggests that the European Community can become a rich man's club. We are not going into Europe as though we were entering the bargain basement of a supermarket dedicated to Green Shield stamps. Nor are we going into Europe in order that we may beat American competition by being better at the game than they are. As a country, when we go into Europe we must seize the opportunity to re-structure industry and commerce upon the basis of general wellbeing and to build up company law so that it reflects the contribution to production made by all the partners in it—workers, managers, providers of capital and con-
262
sumers. If we do not do this, then the strains and stresses produced by this neglect may lead to bigger and more disastrous strikes and industrial unrest.
Those are some of my doubts—and by "doubts", I mean things which the Government must look at and on which they must reassure us. When we enter Europe it will demand that all countries give attention to those lesser and more local loyalties which are an integral part of rich personal and social life. This will require fresh thinking about the international system to enable it to enhance local grouping while fulfilling the needs for large-scale operation. Perhaps this needs building up from the smaller units to the centre, rather than concentrating power at the centre and making it the source of instructions to localities. Unless we do that, Europe can become just another power bloc and we may all find ourselves in the tentacles of myriad suffocating bureaucracies. Those are just some of the difficulties, but they should not in any way suggest that I am anything but enthusiastic about our entry into the Common Market.
My Lords, although I speak without any Whip on the Bishops' Bench, it is known to many of your Lordships that I have for thirty-five years or so been an ardent supporter of the Labour Party and have given a good deal of my life to fighting the battles which seem to me to be precious on behalf of the less privileged people and the working classes of this country. Therefore, perhaps speaking at rather a distance now and outside the turmoil, from these Benches, may I just say this before I sit down. It is a great sadness to me that this great Party to which I have the privilege to belong should be at sixes and sevens and failing to give the lead to this country, or to be associated with the lead, which is required at this moment.
As I understand it, there are four difficulties so far as the Labour Party is concerned. There are those who say: "Well, yes. We believe we should go into Europe, but not under this Government. We just can't trust the Tories." A Bishop is always sitting on the Government side, but I hope my good friends on the Government side will not misunderstand me when I say that I am not a supporter of the Government and there are many things in the policies of

263
this present Government with which I profoundly disagree. But I am wholeheartedly in support of the Prime Minister in the splendid lead he has given us at this time, and I admire him so greatly for having stuck so resolutely to his guns and for never having wavered. To those who say, "We just cannot support this Government", I would say: "I remember that that was the argument which was advanced when I first became interested in politics thirty-five years ago when I was a student at Cambridge: ' We can't rearm because we don't trust the leaders of the Government'." That was the argument—and what a disastrous argument it was! If the Labour Party in the 1930s had managed to rise above Party and to think about the wellbeing of the nation as a whole, we might very well not have suffered the disasters vis-à-vis Hitler that we did. I hope we shall not be so idiotic as to make the same mistake to-day.
Then, the second argument which is put up is: "We must have a referendum". This suggestion was put forward by my good friend Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, who was the Member for my constituency in Bristol where I was a priest, he having succeeded Sir Stafford Cripps. I very much wonder whether his predecessor would have said that. After all, if we always sought the advice of the people we should still have cockfighting and capital punishment. If I may say so to my good friends in the Labour Party, many of the causes which they and I have supported and which our predecessors have supported, and which were opposed by members of the Government, would never have gone through if the Labour leaders had not had the courage of their convictions and fought for the things they believed in, knowing that if the question had gone to a referendum they would have lost. Therefore, I would say to members of our Party: "Don't, don't be influenced by the Luddites and the Little Englanders". There are always those who will say we do not want any change. That will always be. When I am asked to preach at trade union meeting services there is always one thing in the service which rings a bell. That is at the end of the Gloria and the Canticles when it is said:
264
" As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen."
As for the Little Englanders, they exist in both Parties. We know them all. There are those who cut their sandwiches in Dover and fill them with bullybeef because they are terrified about what will happen to their stomachs if they dared to eat the food provided for them in Calais.
Then there is a third argument: "No, we can't go into the Common Market because if we did wt should find ourselves in a capitalist community which would put an end to Socialism not merely in Europe but in Britain." Is this really true? It is a curious argument when one remembers the extent to which Socialists in Europe have expressed their wish for Britain to come in. Willy Brandt, himself a Socialist, has expressed this hope. In fact, it is no secret that when he came to London recently Willy Brandt felt troubled about the apparent weakening towards the European cause shown by the Labour Party. Doctor Mansholdt, a lifelong Socialist of the Netherlands, said this:
" Socialism cannot offer much if the Socialist Parties do not become European."
His object in coming to Britain was to remind the Labour Party that Socialism is an international movement; to ask whether anyone thought that in present times it can be promoted through national action alone.
"We Socialists in Europe",
he said,
"need the British Labour Party."
President Saragat spoke out last week in favour of British entry. The President's intervention was followed by others.
The final point I would make is this. It is said that the Labour Party must be held together; that if any lead at all is given about Europe the Party will divide. This is the sort of argument the Church has very often put forward—we must always think about the Church and we must never do anything which might possibly cause disunity in the Church. My answer always to that is this: "The Church is an agency for the Kingdom of God and our job in the Church is to think about the Kingdom of God and not about the Church. The moment we take our eyes off the Kingdom of God and think about ourselves we end up in

265
the ditch." That is true of a political Party. The Labour Party exists to further Socialism, the community and the brotherhood of man, and I believe that by going into Europe it will do that. The moment it takes its eyes off the goal and thinks about itself, then it will end up in the ditch. We must do what is right because it is right, irrespective of what may happen to us.
I believe that what Mr. Harold Wilson, when he was Prime Minister, said and wished about Europe was right. This was taken up by our present Prime Minister, Mr. Heath. I support them both, no matter what that may do to the Party to which I belong, because I believe it is right; and I believe that if I take my eye off that goal I shall end up in the ditch. Really, what worries me at the moment is that from the Labour Party there is not coming that leadership which Britain demands. What is the signature tune of the Labour Party today? I can only hope it is not the signature tune which too often has characterised the Bench from which I am speaking, of which you will remember the chorus:
" This is the law, I will maintain,
Unto my dying day, Sir,
That whatsoever King shall reign,
I will be the Vicar of Bray, Sir."
I am not interested in remaining the Vicar of Bray. I hope that the Labour Party is not interested in just remaining the Labour Party, or the Tory Party in remaining the Tory Party. What really matters is the goal. Just as the barriers between city States broke down some centuries ago, and the barrier between Scotland and England broke down later, so we now in our generation must break down the barrier which exists between us and Europe. I would say to my friends in the Labour Party, as indeed I would say to people in any Party—and it may be appropriate from these Benches—from the Epistle to the Corinthians, and I say this very seriously,
" For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?"
6.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I know we have all listened with great attention to the right reverend Prelate, and the remarks which he directed at my Party and his Party. I am
266
sure they will be carefully noted; I only hope they will not imperil his position as a kind of unofficial chaplain, which he occupies in the hearts of many of us, along with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Sorensen. I hope that in his heart he will find it possible to sympathise a little with some of the difficulties of his Party colleagues. I am sure he will not mind if I commit the impertinence of offering him a little pseudo-moral advice.
I have never in my life made a speech at the end of which anybody said to me, "It's a pity you did not speak longer". I do not know whether any noble Lord has been more fortunate than I have been, but I hope to achieve this result to-day. Of course, I may be too sanguine in that hope. I expect to be shorter than anyone who has actually spoken—not, of course, that any noble Lord spoke for too long, but I hope to be shorter still. In these few remarks I should like to pay a sincere tribute to the two maiden speakers, the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham—and I shall come back to him before I finish—and my old friend and colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Blake, who succeeded me as politics tutor in a famous Oxford college. I know the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, will expect me to drop into Latin when referring to an ancient college, so I can only say De matres palchre filiae pulchria which of course all Members of the House will pick up very rapidly, even in an imperfect accent.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl just to say that he once used that remark about me.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, that bears out the implication of the noble Lord that I know only one Latin quotation. I have to drop into this particular phraseology—
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl and ask him whether he will translate the quotation for the benefit of those of us who have not had his good fortune in education?
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, it means that I was followed at Oxford years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, and as Leader of this House by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and,

267
roughly speaking, they are now to be looked upon as, spiritually speaking, twins. Does that explain what I was trying to convey?
We are extremely grateful for the arrangements that have brought the noble Lord, Lord Blake, here. I think we have not got an official historian among all these rival experts in the House, except the noble Lord, Lord Blake. He gave us some impression of what Sir Robert Peel would have done about the Common Market. He did not mention the fact that he has written two of the greatest political biographies of the time—the life of Mr. Bonar Law and the life of Mr. Disraeli, later Lord Beaconsfield, and he did not tell us what either of those would have said. At any rate the noble Lord, Lord Blake, expressed the spirit of Mr. Bonar Law, who once said:
"This is, after all, a great country"
and of Disraeli, who said:
"Man is a being born to believe".
In other words, the noble Lord breathed a spirit of optimism and good cheer along with other more intellectual values, and I know we shall all look forward to his contributions with exceptional interest in the future.
People come up to me in these latter days and say to me, as to someone dredged out of the Ark, "I cannot remember whether you ever said anything about the Common Market". Indeed, people may be forgiven for not remembering anything I have said about the Common Market, but I once said something vehement about it in 1962, when in fact I supported it strongly. One noble Lord came up to me about half an hour ago and said that he remembered my being against it last year. I think he must have misunderstood me. In my own eyes I have never weakened on this issue, and certainly when I was in the Government I supported it to the best of my humble power on that point of the attitude of Mr. Wilson's Cabinet. I am talking of the earlier proceedings, before I disappeared from the scene. But in talking of 1967 I have absolutely no doubt in my mind (although nothing can be proved about something that did not come to pass) that in fact the terms now available would have been accepted by the Labour Government in 1967. I can-
268
not prove it; there is not a document that I can quote, but I am just quite sure that that would have been so. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, knew much more about it than I did, because he was much more closely associated with Mr. Wilson, and I am quite sure that when he said the terms would have been acceptable to the Labour Government he was absolutely correct.
However, I did not rise to say that. I rose for a slightly different purpose and I am afraid I may now break an axiom—one of the few axioms in Parliamentary speaking—which is that one should address one's remarks to the whole assembly. I am going to address mine to some of my more anxious colleagues, while of course I have no means of stopping others from listening in. I ask my colleagues, particularly the more idealistic section of my colleagues—I can see from their blushes which ones recognise this account of themselves—the ones who pride themselves, as I have in my time prided myself, on standing for some vision higher than that of the ordinary citizens, what at bottom has been the international idea for which the Labour Party has stood, at any rate since the end of the First World War? It has passed under different names: the League of Nations, the United Nations, and in recent times the idea of World Government.
Let us just stick to that phrase for a moment, which in fact was employed in that fine speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I am not saying that this is a monopoly of ours, hut, surely, if we in the Labour Party have prided ourselves on anything in international affairs it is that we have stood for the vision of an international society which was quite different from the present one—not just an improvement and not just a more cunning arrangement of our diplomatic effects, but a new kind of society altogether, a society which would be based on the idea of the limitation of national sovereignty, the end of international anarchy and the establishment of world institutions, including a world police force. In that way, and in that way only, we believed that permanent peace could be established. That surely has been something which has united all members of the Labour Party, whether

269
they were pacifists or non-pacifists, in whatever controversies, edifying or less edifying, we have found ourselves involved in at different times. Are we, as a Party, still pursuing that ideal or have we just scrapped it? I have not heard much about it. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, made a reference to it and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, dealt with it. Unfortunately I did not hear his speech but I have read it. I would regard it as horrifying if, at this time, we had three days of debate and World Government or some new world order seemed to have disappeared from the Labour philosophy.
I would say that the greatest disappointment—and this was not something for which we were in any way to blame—of the six years of Mr. Wilson's Government was the failure to make any progress at all towards World Government. That was through no conceivable fault of ours. We were represented as well as any country could be represented abroad by the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, for example, and there was never any moment when we should not have been ready for progress on this front if it had been at all possible. But for reasons we are all aware of—the attitude of the Soviet Union, but not only of the Soviet Union—no progress was made, and I think it is only right to submit that it is not in the least likely that any progress in a direct universal sense through the United Nations is likely to be made in the next few years towards this vision of a higher world society with institutions of world government.
Is there any alternative method of procedure? Noble Lords may have their own suggestions, but I see one and one only of any importance at the present time. I would submit that it is only through regional arrangements, of which the European opportunity before us is much the most outstanding, that one can begin to move away from the world of national sovereignty and move towards a system which makes possible the hope of lasting peace.
I am not going to get involved in the constitutional questions, which were dealt with so thoroughly earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Some people are trying to prove, I suppose, that we retain our sovereignty under
270
these arrangements, which I myself entirely favour. I will leave that to the constitutional lawyers and to semantic settlement. But in fact, as we all know, if we move towards world government we do not lose our freedom but we pool our freedom and sovereignty in a higher possibility of freedom, and in the hope of peace and prosperity for the whole world.
So that is simply what I want to put before the House, and particularly my noble friends: if the Labour Party still stands for anything at all distinctive in international affairs, if it has not just chucked its hand in when it comes to international idealism, it is for this aim of world government, and I submit respectfully but firmly that progress along that line is only possible if we take the opportunity before us now.
Before I close may I come back to something that was said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and referred to also by the noble Lord, Lord Robens, in his powerful speech. They both dealt with the Schumann Plan at its inception and the attitude of our Government at the time. May I say in a friendly and respectful spirit to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, that I do not think any Party can obtain any advantage from arguing that they have been more wise in their attitude towards Europe over the whole 25 years than others. Both Parties made mistakes. The noble and learned Viscount made references to his previous speeches. Perhaps I might suggest that if any noble Lord quotes at length from his former speeches then his opponents should be allowed to quote some passages from his less prudent remarks. That would be a salutary experience. I am sure what the noble and learned Viscount said was extraordinarily good, but it is just possible at the same time that other remarks were less convincing. I submit that as a possible rule as we pass along.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I would say two things to the noble Earl. I am not a Viscount, first of all. Let that be clearly understood; I am a Life Baron. Secondly, the noble Earl can choose any passages from any of my speeches he likes and quote them at length so far as I am concerned, but I suspect he would be howled down.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very sorry about the Viscountcy. I am not exactly one to talk, but the noble Lord has changed his style and title so often that I hope we understand them before we are very much older. However, he found some wise words of his own which he delivered about 20 years ago, and the noble Lord, Lord Robens, also dealt with the same period. I will end with one recollection of mine from that time or thereabouts. Just after the publication of the Schumann Plan I happened to visit Dr. Adenauer, the German Chancellor. I had been Minister for the British Zone of Germany, but at the time I was Minister of Civil Aviation. He treated me as a good deal more important than the facts required, and urged me when I returned to England to beg the Government of the day—Mr. Atlee, as he was, Mr. Bevin and others—to seize this opportunity, showing a fervour and an emotion which I never saw him reveal on other occasions. He begged me urgently to see if I could bring this about. You can imagine what happens when a Minister of Civil Aviation returns with this kind of message. He eventually obtains an audience of someone, a Private Secretary probably; but at any rate this particular approach led precisely nowhere. We must take it that at that time the Government were not ready to seize the opportunity at all.
It was not, I think, a Minister, but an official—I will not name him; he may be a Member of this House by this time; although I cannot see him, looking round—who coined the phrase. "We must not tie ourselves to a corpse"; that referred to the Europe of the 1950s. I do not know whether that is going to go into his autobiography; people are sometimes quite selective when it comes to autobiography. At any rate, that expressed the ministerial spirit at the time. How wrong can you be! As Lord Robens said, everybody makes mistakes; at least, I think that is what he was seeking to say. The noble Lord's Party made mistakes as soon as they got the chance. As soon as they got in power they went back on a great deal of what they had said on Europe. This is common knowledge. Do not let us suppose that one Party has been right and one wrong.
Now at least in this House, and I would think in both Houses, we can con
272
clued that there will be an overwhelming opinion in favour of entering Europe. But I just implore my own Party colleagues in particular not to sink any opinion that they may have—they are certainly not likely to do it at my request—but to ponder whether there is not perhaps some force in what I have tried to place before them: the thought that if a Labour Government is going to mean anything constructive or visionary in the future then world government must remain our objective, and the progress to world government must come through entry into Europe.
6.28 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER: My Lords, it is a pleasant, but not an easy, task to follow the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat, who under whatever style or title he may address the House—and he himself has changed quite a bit—will always be listened to with respect and affection, and who himself has played a leading role in your Lordships' House for so long that some of his quotations are coming round for the second time.
It is impossible in a debate of this sort to avoid repetition, and I do not know that one should try too much to do so. The purpose of this debate is not to pile up votes in favour; piling up votes in your Lordships' House on this issue would perhaps not matter very much. The purpose of this debate is to express the weight of opinion, and that cannot be done without a fair amount of repetition. But what we can do is try to be selective in our arguments, and that I propose to do. I intend to concentrate only on that small segment of the general argument which seems to me to be more likely than others to have some impact upon the waverers in public opinion.
I feel that I ought to apologise to your Lordships for not breaking the monotony of this long string of speeches in favour of our joining the Common Market, but I have been a believer in the closest possible association of Europe ever since the idea first came to life at the end of the war. Unlike some people who now claim that status—not in your Lordships' House—I am on record week by week in that sense in the early years of this great argument. It has always seemed to me that the really compelling arguments for our joining with Europe are the long term, positive ones—the great

273
issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred. May I say, in passing, what satisfaction it gave to me, who am a passionate amateur of history, to know that in future I shall be able to hear him as well as to read him. I have always thought that those long-term issues are the compelling ones.
They are, broadly speaking, the arguments for England as against the Anglo-Saxon heptarchy. None of the swelling chronicle of our national history would have been written if the arguments for the heptarchial separatists—which no doubt sounded very respectable in their day—had been listened to 1200 years ago. I am not putting those arguments aside; They have been expressed very eloquently by quite a number of noble Lords. I intend to concentrate on a narrower issue which has formed part of many speeches made by noble Lords, but has not yet been the main thread of any, unless it was one of those few speeches that I have neither been able to hear nor to read in Hansard. That is, what would happen if we do not join in the European Economic Community.
One has not heard very much in public in the last few years of these arguments. I do not think that they are being given in the country nearly the weight that they should have. The reasons why they have not been heard are fairly obvious. No one with any responsibility for the negotiations in Brussels, be it in the last Government or in this Government, would wish to say anything that could he taken as spoiling his case by dwelling on the compelling necessities of our accepting an agreement if he was trying to get, as was his duty, the best bargain that he could. Moreover, there has been a strong tendency, and a natural tendency in this country, not to underline what I believe is the very weak economic posture in which we find ourselves. I am not speaking just of this month of July, 1971 when, for the moment, our economy, in some respects though not in others, seems to be stronger than it has been at other junctures in recent years. I am speaking of the whole period since the War, in which we are still living, and in which we have been wrestling with our economic problems with so little success, and in which it can be said that the only way in which we have discovered it possible to balance our books—and then temporarily—is by devaluing our currency.
274
Nobody likes to say how weak the economy is. No Government would ever say so, because they would be simply giving a handle to their opponents. If the Opposition say so, then the public shrugs its shoulders and says "It is pretty Fanny's way. That is what they are paid to say, that everything is going to the dogs". But the fact is that, by every economic index you can apply, this country is weak, and getting weaker; be it the growth rate; be it the development of productivity; be it our share in world exports; be it, to take an example of a particular industry, shipping and shipbuilding. At the time of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, which is only one long life ago, over half the shipping in the world flew the Red Ensign, and a thousand ships a year were launched from the shipyards of this country; and to what a sad state have those two industries been reduced.
Moreover, it is not only these quantifiable measures, there is something in the air that has gone wrong. I move about the world a fair amount, and I find now wherever I go a growing conviction that this is the country where things go wrong. If it is not strikes it is taxes; if it is not taxes it is management blunders; and if it is not any of those, it is devaluation. "The English disease" is a phrase that you hear more and more; and more and more people, including our friends, are shaking their heads over our inability to get rid of it.
In my opinion it is no good looking for quantifiable mechanistic explanations of this state of affairs. There is no switch in the Treasury, no thermostat that can be turned up to a 4 per cent. growth rate, that produces the result that we want. These weaknesses have persisted under all Governments, and with all policies that have been tried for a generation past. I believe that the explanation is to be found in the collective psychology of the British community; in the spirit of the times within this country. There are, after all, no economic problems that are not political, and there are no political problems that are not psychological. It is in psychology, collective psychology, that I believe we have to find the explanation. As a nation we have lost interest, lost sufficient interest in the wealth creating process. We are suffering

275
from a bad state, a low state of economic morale. Lest I suffer the awful fate of being put on Lord Shinwell's list of denigrators, let me say that I recognise that sweeping generalisations of this sort always have their objection. We have some of the finest scientists in the world; we have great inventors, great developers. I have no doubt that we have many superlative business managers; and our trade unions are inspired, so we are repeatedly assured—and I accept it—by a sense of responsibility. All these things are right. Many of the components are excellent, but still there is something badly wrong with the running of the machine.
No country in the world puts higher demands upon its economy than we do to sustain, and constantly to increase, the welfare of our people. Few of the great nations pay so little attention to the process of creating the wealth which alone can discharge those expectations. In the United States, whenever I go there—and that is the only country other than this I can claim to know at all well—I always have the feeling that the ordinary man on the shop floor, or behind the counter, however awkward he may be from time to time, knows in the marrow of his bones that his income, his standard of living, depends upon the economic efficiency of the enterprise with which he is concerned. That is not so in this country. The connection between output and effort and the individual reward has been broken. One sometimes feels that, in many chaps', minds, work—and I am thinking not only of manual work but work of all kinds, the production of wealth—has come to be regarded almost as a conventional necessity, as an old-fashioned routine that an unreformed establishment requires a man to perform before he can draw his rightful share of the national dividend. It is not a bit of good telling the average Englishman that it is simply impossible to work less and eat better, because, for a variety of accidental reasons, that is exactly what he has been doing for a generation past.
If I were to attempt to sketch to your Lordships what I believe to be the reasons for this state of affairs, I should detain you for a very long time, so I will not do so. Undoubtedly it has something to do with the wars we have fought. This
276
is the only country, the only large country in the world, which fought hard from the first day to the last of both the world wars without being defeated or occupied; the only one that had all the exhaustion, without the therapeutic effect of having the plough through our institutions and the old sod turned and fresh soil brought up. That undoubtedly has something to do with it. It is partly due to historical accidents, fortunate historical accidents. We have been fortunate in having capital to live on, and having the terms of trade swing in our favour; so that we have been encouraged to believe that the economic process is too easy.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, since so much has been said to denigrate Australia, may I just ask: am I wrong in thinking that they too came in at the beginning of both world wars?
LORD CROWTHER: My Lords, I would not for a moment wish to deny that, and it was precisely for that reason that I qualified my original phrase and said the "only large country". Australia, which I greatly admire and hope will become a large country, was hardly in that classification in either of the wars.
I think that this phenomenon of the state of mind that we have got into is just as difficult for us to explain as historians have found it difficult to explain the opposite phenomenon, of the sudden burst into a golden age by different communities at times. But I have no doubt that we are at the opposite, or nearly towards the opposite, of a golden age. I am not, of course, taken in by the fact that just at the moment, for what I fear will be a brief period, our balance of payments—that great measure of success or failure—is showing some strength.
How does all this connect with the Common Market? It connects in two ways. First of all, I confess to being really apprehensive about what will happen in this country if we do not choose to enter the Common Market. The whole world is gradually forming into these areas that have free trade internally and are surrounded by high protective barriers. As an old free trader I abominate this, but one has to recognise that it is so. Have we any similarly large alternative markets to which we have

277
access? I remember that at the time of the first application, and more faintly at the time of the second application, one heard a great deal about the Commonwealth as an alternative possibility. I notice that this is hardly mentioned at all to-day, because it must be clear that, however highly one may think of the political virtues of the Commonwealth, it simply does not provide a possibility of giving us a stable and assured market for sufficient quantities of our goods. Or at one time it became quite fashionable to advocate the North Atlantic free trade area, but that again, I think, is now quite clearly a non-starter. There is not the slightest chance of its happening, and I suspect that we should find it pretty disastrous if it did.
Is there any other alternative? Are ther any other of these large areas? I do not believe there are. I think the only alternative to joining the Common Market is to be left by ourselves, and in such a world only those nations which have supremely high economic morale will be able to stand by themselves; the Japanese, who are clearly on the crest of the wave, or the Swiss, who have always paid a 19th century respect to the economic virtues.
The dangers that we are running have not been very apparent in recent years, because we have been living in an uninterrupted sellers' market, where the demand for goods and services of all kinds has been tending to outrun supply, which is the same thing as a condition of inflation. But, sooner or later, and I sometimes think that it will be sooner rather than later, we shall revert to a world-wide buyers' market, and unless we have managed to secure membership in one of these areas we shall find that we are squeezed out everywhere.
What are those commodities that nowadays, in the 1970s, we in this country can produce and sell that are either so good or so cheap that they can sell in these great areas where our competitors are admitted freely, and where we shall have to climb over high tariff walls? In the 19th century, there was cotton and coal and endless varieties of machinery, but what is there to-day that we could hope to sell in the required quantities if we were shut out from all those associations that are joining
278
together? Certainly, the prospect of my having any responsibility for the Government of this country at any time is very remote, but I should be horrified at the prospect of bearing even the outside share of responsibility for this country if, outside the Common Market, we landed in another world-wide trade slump.
I observe that in the process of attempting to reconcile intellectual honesty with political expediency, which is now exercising so many Members of another place, the argument has arisen that we are at the moment too weak to enter the Common Market; that we must wait until we are strong and then, if they will have us, go in. Good gracious, my Lords! If they think we are too weak to enter the Common Market, how on earth do they think we are going to survive outside it? That is why it seems to me that the arguments over the terms, whether the price of sugar is going to be high enough for the West Indies, and all the rest of the minutiæ, are really quite beside the point. It has always been clear, ever since we committed our biggest political mistake for 200 years by refusing to be one of the founder members of the Common Market, that we should have to pay a price to get in, and the price is very much lower than I expected it to be. But, in any case, you do not haggle over the subscription when you are invited to climb into a lifeboat. You scramble aboard while there is still a seat for you.
But there is a positive side, even to what I frankly confess is the negative argument that I am putting before your Lordships, because I sincerely believe that the Common Market may prove to be just what is needed to bring us to our economic senses. Your Lordships will remember Professor Toynbee's intriguing theory of challenge and response in seeking to explain the rise and fall of civilisations. He said that a civilisation rose when the challenge that had to be met was big enough to be stimulating and to require effort, but not so big as to be crushing and impossible. That, I believe, is exactly what Europe will be for us. We shall indeed have to change many of our habits if we are to keep up, but, if we do respond to that competition and change our bad habits of the past generation, then I believe there is absolutely no reason why

279
we should not within fifteen or twenty years be leading the band.
If on the other hand, we are left in isolation, then we shall get more and more inbred, and I have no doubt that we shall go on telling ourselves every day how British is best, how good we are, and how the world looks to our leadership, as we wait in the queue for our daily bread ration. I believe that the Common Market will have very great and positive and long-lasting benefits for this country and for the world. Those I have not developed and have left aside, but I believe they are as nothing to the perils that we face if we stay out.
6.47 p.m.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, during this debate we have listened to a series of most interesting, eloquent and striking speeches. I know there are many occasions when we in this House congratulate ourselves on the high standard of the contribution which we make to the controversies of the day; sometimes those congratulations are deserved and, perhaps, on other occasions are less deserved. But I am quite certain that your Lordships who have listened to this debate this afternoon will agree that the high standard which has been attained is very remarkable indeed. I therefore feel a very great sense of diffidence in addressing your Lordships on this occasion, because this is not a subject on which I normally trespass, or about which I am well informed, or on which I have any original comments or arguments to put forward to you. I am reassured in some degree by what the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has said, that at this stage in any debate of this length repetition is inevitable. I am also reassured by what the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said about it being our duty to stand up and be counted, to give our opinion rather than to argue, to say what we feel at this present time, speaking for ourselves individually, to be right for our country. I think we should be clear that this is not a Party matter. Views on this subject cut across Party and there is, and should be, no Party advantage to be gained from the way in which this great matter is handled here in Parliament. I am sure that the country at large will judge our handling on that sort of basis.
280
I do not believe for one moment, although I was greatly impressed and slightly frightened by what the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, said about our economic future if we do not get in, that the pros and cons of the economic consequences, at any rate in the short run, are directly relevant to the decision we should make. I do not believe that any White Paper, however able in its drafting and however detailed in its treatment, can assess the consequences of Britain's decision to join, for I believe that the Europe of the Six without Britain, cannot be, and will not be, anything like the same as the Europe of the Ten with Britain. We know, and I am sure that the French know, that the inclusion of this country in the E.E.C. will have unforeseeable consequences, not only for the Six but Europe in general, and the nature of them we can hardly at this time properly guess. All I know—and here I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Crowther—is that I can see no acceptable alternative to joining the E.E.C. I know also that I would be a very anxious man—anxious for the future of myself and of my children—if we, in this year of 1971, failed to make the decision to join Europe on the terms which have been negotiated. Furthermore, I say quite frankly that, even though those terms had not been as good as they are, I would still have supported a decision to join; and, had the decision to join been made by the Government of another Party, by the Labour Government, I would have supported that Government in their decision.
My Lords, I cannot add to the wealth of information which your Lordships have had during the course of this debate. I can only bear witness as to things which have influenced me to change my mind from being someone who was opposed to, or at any rate uninterested to a large extent in, the project of joining the Common Market to someone who is a firm supporter of the proposition now. The first of these is, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, two world wars. We know that those wars originated in the historic antagonisms of European countries. Those wars would not have occurred had there been, and I hope will not occur in the event of there being, a European system established in which we as well as

281
France and Germany and the other countries formed part. Politically, therefore, from that point of view, that is the most powerful argument. Secondly, the decline of the Commonwealth as a political force has made me realise that the hopes I once had, and which enabled me to see in the Commonwealth an alternative to Europe, no longer make sense in the present situation in which we find ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther, said, and quite rightly, that many of us had hoped that there would be an alternative through a Commonwealth system which had sufficient political and economic power. That is no longer the case, and we must not fool ourselves into believing that that alternative exists. As there is no longer that alternative, I am forced back on the prospect of joining Europe.
Thirdly, there are the great historic and cultural traditions of Europe of which we are, perhaps, more to-day than ever before, consciously part: not "ever before", but certainly over the last 200 years. Because we should not forget, and do not forget, that in the mediaeval period and the beginning of the formative period of our history we were essentially, and felt ourselves essentially to be, a part of Europe, and we are merely returning to the themes and traditions of the past which, when revived, will give us, I believe, a sense of satisfaction, a sense of fulfilment, which even to-day we do not fully realise. I must say, my Lords, that the thing that perhaps struck my imagination most during the whole of my adult life was the decision of Mr. Winston Churchill, as he then was, to offer common citizenship to the French at the time of the fall of France. It has seemed to me when one has thought about it that if that sense of unity between these two great peoples in the face of a common enemy could have been so significant in time of war, how much more significant is this sense of unity that we can create, not only with two great peoples, but also in partnership with the enemy of that time.
My Lords, the fourth reason for my change of mind is the deterioration, as I see it, in the capacity of the American people to exercise world leadership. It has become, to me at any rate, increasingly clear that for the time being—I hope not for long, but for the time being—it
282
is not possible for us to rely, as we have for the last 20 years and more, upon the ability of the United States to maintain itself as a major influence (not as a super Power, for it will continue to be that, no doubt, but a major influence) in the preservation of the security of the Western world. We must therefore look to ourselves, and we should be foolish not to do so. Next, there is the need for size in relation to the resources which are necessary in a technological age. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has put that so much better than I could. But it is quite clear, and is becoming clearer, that small units, even a unit of the size of a national unit such as the United Kingdom, cannot take advantage of the development of technological skills and inventions unless the resources that are available are pooled and shared with other countries to give us the scope which is necessary to bring them to fulfilment.
Lastly, my Lords, the fact is that Britain's changed status as a world Power, and the fact that it has ceased to be a metropolitan country of a great political system, have left this country without a field of constructive political act ion which we require, and has deprived our younger people of that essential fulfilment of idealism which in the past the Commonwealth as an ideal has provided for them. I believe they will find that in Europe; I believe that they want to find it in Europe; and I believe that by joining Europe they will get the sort of satisfaction which, as an earlier generation, we got from our close association with and our feeling of achievement as represented by, the Empire in the first place and the Commonwealth in the second.
I have no fear about our ability to hold our own industrially in Europe. I have no fear about the ability of our farmers to hold their own agriculturally, for we have perhaps the most developed and efficient farming industry in the world. I have no doubt of our ability to hold our own politically in the realms of politics and statesmanship with the countries with whom we shall be associated, regardless of what their political complexion will be. I look forward to the day when this country can be one part of this great international experiment, and as such will provide for our people an increased measure of security in an uncertain world, an increasing standard of living and a spiritual fulfilment

283
which we could never have if we remain on our own.
6.58 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it seems to me that one of the disadvantages of intervening late in the day in a long debate of this kind is not so much that there are few arguments left to put but that there are so few people left to whom to put them. But let me, before I begin to speak to the Motion, say something, if I may with your Lordships' permission, for the Record. From something that was said in the debate yesterday by my noble friend Lord George-Brown I think noble Lords may possibly have gained a mistaken impression, and it might be worthwhile making it clear that the expression "soft shoe shuffle" which he used in his speech was in fact introduced into the television discussion to which he referred by a television interviewer and not by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition.
My Lords, it has been made clear, I think, that those of us who speak from the Front Bench on this side of the House speak entirely for themselves: not for the Front Bench, not for our colleagues on this side of the House, and certainly not for the Labour Party. The fact is—and this has now become obvious beyond doubt—that on this question of British entry into the European Economic Communities it is possible to hold, with complete conviction and sincerity, views which cover the entire spectrum of attitudes towards the problem.
Here perhaps I may be permitted to make the only personal comment that I shall make in the course of my remarks. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord is not sitting on the Woolsack at the moment, but perhaps he will have the opportunity to read these few brief comments of mine in the OFFICIAL REPORT. So far as I could discern it at all, it seemed to me that the purpose of the sometimes rather bizarre intervention of the noble and learned Lord was a double one; first to declare his support for British entry into the Common Market and, second, to score some debating points at the expense of the Labour Party. As a convinced European I regret to say that I do not think that his speech
284
did very much to advance the Common Market cause. It is strange to find such an experienced Parliamentarian so completely misjudging the mood of your Lordships' House. I beg him, too, not to concern himself too deeply with the health of the Labour Party. Even if there were the, I think he called them internecine conflicts and bitternesses of the kind he conjured up with such vivid hyperbole, I can assure the House that nothing would be more calculated to remove it than the eccentric fulminations of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. A debate within a Party is as much a matter of conviction as a debate between Parties. I beg the noble and learned Lord not to fall into the practice of impugning the honour of those who venture to disagree with his views.
Having got that much off my chest, there is of course a wide spectrum of views about this. There are those who believe that we should not join the Common Market on any terms at all; on the other hand, there are those who believe that in order to get into the Communities we should be prepared to accept any terms, however seriously they may affect in the short term the interests and the economic prosperity of this country. My own view has remained unchanged since long before I was directly concerned, in 1967, with the preparation of negotiations which in the event did not take place because of a political decision by the President of France. My view is that the advantages to this country of joining the Economic Communities and of taking part in their further integration and development are overwhelming. It was, therefore, in my view, right to enter into negotiations with the Six to see whether this country could accede to the Treaty of Rome on terms which would not place an intolerable burden on our balance of payments, which would not adversely affect the prosperity and security of the people of this country and which would at the same time allow us to discharge honourably and effectively our commitments to friends and allies all over the world. So when the Government White Paper that we are now debating appeared and the terms were available to be analysed, the only problem so far as I was concerned was to decide whether these criteria had been satisfied.

285
I think that it would be appropriate to look first at the White Paper and to decide whether the terms are set out in a way that makes them clearly understandable and, if so, whether the terms are fair and acceptable. As regards the White Paper itself, I must confess that I found it a rather disappointing document. I should have hoped to see at this stage of the great national debate a clear, factual statement setting out the progress of negotiations and the terms which were achieved, together with the essential background information necessary to set these facts in their proper context. This was not, in my view, the place to argue the case for entry; nor was it an opportunity to deliver what I thought was sometimes a rather patronising lecture deploying such resounding phrases as,
"every historic choice involves challenge as well as opportunity".
Such phrases may have an impressive ring of rhetoric about them, but I do not think they really throw much light on the arguments that will have to be resolved before Parliament and the people of this country can make up their minds about what is an historic and, for all practical purposes, an irrevocable step which they are now being asked to take.
Having said that, I should like to recall—it has been done before, but I think I must do it here again—that when the last application to join the Common Market was made in 1967, the Government of the day, then a Labour Government, outlined a number of major issues—indeed, the Prime Minister of the day outlined them himself in another place—which had to be settled if the terms for joining the Common Market were to be considered satisfactory. They were: a satisfactory transitional period to enable us to adjust to the financing of Community agriculture; safeguards for Commonwealth sugar-producing countries and for New Zealand; and acceptable arrangements to deal with capital movements and regional policies. These were the only areas on which it was considered necessary to obtain satisfactory terms. So far as I am aware, none of those requirements has changed since 1967; nor, in my view, has there been any change in the situation since 1967 which would require those conditions to be revised.
286
If we look at the White Paper, is it possible to conclude that the requirements set out by the Prime Minister of the day have been met? In my view they have been met. The transitional arrangements for industry as well as for agriculture and the method which has been found of enabling us gradually to adapt to the Community budget system over a period of years seem to me to be fair and equitable. It is, as the White Paper says, impossible to quantify accurately either our contribution to or our receipts from the Community budget in the 1980s. It is in this context that the Community has declared in the course of, the negotiations that if unacceptable situations should arise
"the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find equitable solutions".
It is difficult for me to imagine that any negotiating team of whatever Party could have achieved more in this respect.
So far as the Commonwealth is concerned, it is clear that the agreement which was reached on New Zealand exports of dairy products is fully acceptable to the Government and to New Zealand. The Government of New Zealand have said so. It is difficult to see how anyone outside New Zealand can reasonably suggest that it is not. Similarly, the solution achieved in the negotiations over the problem of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement was fully accepted by all the Governments concerned. If they are satisfied it would, in my view, be perverse for us to suggest that we are not. On the question of capital movements, the Government, according to the White Paper, are proposing to move by stages to full compliance with Common Market obligations on the freedom of capital movement with a transitional period of five years.
It seems to me clear beyond reasonable doubt that the terms and conditions which have been secured by the Government negotiators on the major problems outlined in 1967 are acceptable and fair. It seems to me entirely reasonable that Parliament should be asked in due course to ratify accession to the European Economic Communities on these terms. But I would also say that before this is done, there are a number of omissions from the White Paper which will have

287
to be repaired. Unless I have misunderstood the document or misread it, it is not entirely clear, for example, how the value-added tax is to be applied. This is a matter which is going to have important social and economic implications for the people of this country.
On the question of fisheries, the best that the White Paper can do is to say:
" the Government are determined to secure arrangements which will be fair throughout the enlarged community and will satisfactorily safeguard the interests of British fishermen ".
Obviously, such satisfactory arrangements should be a condition for entry, not something to be secured after the decisive step has been taken.
The three brief paragraphs on regional policies are more pious expressions of faith than statements of fact or achievement. Again, as I said at the beginning, one of the criteria for satisfactory terms should be that the interests of all our friends and allies to whom we have commitments all over the world should be secured. I must confess that I have considerable doubts about whether the brief paragraphs on EFTA in the White Paper make it sufficiently clear that the position of our partners in the European Free Trade Area, has been effectively and unequivocally secured. So it seems to me that there are some gaps in the Government's White Paper, and they are gaps which I believe the Government will have to fill if they expect to convince those who have genuine doubts about the wisdom of their policy.
But, my Lords, I repeat that for those like me who believe that entry into the Common Market is vital to Britain's political and economic future the terms set out in the White Paper are fair and acceptable, even if they are not perfect. At the same time I realise that nothing which the Government may say or do between now arid the autumn is likely to convince those many people, on both sides of this House and in another place, and indeed in the country, who believe passionately that we should not become members of the E.E.C. whatever the conditions and whatever the terms.
The arguments for and against have been rehearsed a thousand times, and a hundred times in your Lordships' House in the past two days. They have been
288
deployed again to-day in this debate, and they will be in the many debates which will go on in the country and which will not stop even after we have joined the Common Market. For my part I have never made any secret of the fact that the crucial argument, virtually the only overriding argument, is the political one. I realise, of course, that it is not possible to distinguish, with any degree of significance at any rate, between economic and political factors. Indeed, I believe that enlargement of the E.E.C. with Britain as one of its members will in the long term bring increased prosperity to the people of this country and to the rest of Europe. The argument has been put forward that the higher rate of growth in the Six compared with that of the United Kingdom is not attributable to membership by the Six of the European Economic Community. But what of the other fact, which was not mentioned, that the growth rate of the Six is higher now than it was before they joined the European Economic Community? Surely that cannot be entirely coincidence.
I have never disputed, and I do not now, that there will be short-term economic disadvantages in entry to the Common Market, not least in the cost of living and particularly the cost of food. I do not regard these as unimportant minutiae in the negotiations. They are important and vital matters for the people of this country. It is therefore for everyone to decide for himself whether the long-term advantages outweigh the short-term difficulties. In my view they do, but I fully respect the views of those who think otherwise. The economic argument is for me, and has been since the day when we first applied to join the Common Market, a finely balanced one. But when we come to look at the political side of the coin there is, in my view, no doubt whatever where the overwhelming advantage lies. We can no longer as a comparatively small nation State, a middle Power, hope to have the influence on world affairs that we had when we were at the heart of a great empire. The same applies to the nation States of France, Germany and Italy, the Benelux countries, and indeed to any of the smaller countries in Eastern or Western Europe.
The world to-day is a world of super-Powers, the existing super-Powers of the Soviet Union and United States of America, and soon, perhaps, the third

289
great super-Power growing up on the other side of the world, the People's Republic of China; and, who knows, before too long the Japanese might join the ranks of super-Powers, if we in Western Europe are content to remain indefinitely fragmented, a collection of small and medium-sized States clinging to our illusions of sovereignty and national aspirations without ally attempt to unify or harmonise their foreign policies and their approach to the great human and social problems of the world, we must not he surprised if the solutions to these great problems are found without us.
Let us not be in any doubt what those problems are, and their importance to the prosperity and happiness, and perhaps the survival, of the human race. They are the great problems of starvation and disease in a rapidly expanding world population, problems of pollution of the environment, the poisoning of the environment by technological development. They are the problems of weapons of mass destruction which still threaten our very lives and the problems of relations between the peoples of Eastern and Western Europe. As my noble Friend Lord Shepherd rightly pointed out yesterday, Europe does not stop at the River Elbe; Europe is the whole of Europe, not just the western half. It is these problems, my Lords, which will decide whether future generations are to suffer, as we and our fathers suffered, the constantly recurring insanity of war, or whether they are to live in happiness, peace and prosperity.
I want to be assured that the solutions to these problems are not always decided in Washington or in Moscow, or even in Pekin or Tokio. I want some of them to be settled here in Europe. I do not believe that the people of this great country will be content to turn their backs on the rest of the world and tend their own gardens. This is not to suggest that we should try to set up Europe as some kind of third force, or fourth force or fifth force, to compete in terms of real-politik with the great military super-Powers. It is here that I must confess I find myself in this one respect a little uneasy about the fact that it is a Conservative Government and not a Labour Government which seems likely to take this country into the European Com-
290
munities. There has been a great deal of talk and a great deal of uninformed fantasy among certain members of the Party opposite about nuclear weapons in Europe.
I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, being so forthright on this subject yesterday. I was not entirely reassured, because he, my Lords, is one of the more enlightened members of his Party, but others sometimes speak with different voices. We have heard talk about Britain "holding her nuclear weapons in trust for Europe". We have seen members of the Party opposite lobbying around the capitals of Europe for the establishment of some kind of European nuclear deterrent based on the pooling of French and British nuclear striking forces. I regard this as most appallingly dangerous nonsense. Quite apart from the fact that the so-called European nuclear deterrent would be no deterrent at all it would make no military sense, and the political effects would be disastrous. Even assuming that it could be established, can anyone imagine the difficulties in evolving a control system for it? Suppose it was possible to evolve an effective control system, does anyone believe that it would be possible to exclude from that control system the Federal Republic of Germany, militarily and economically one of the most powerful nations of Western Europe? if they were included in such a control system, can anyone imagine that the Federal Chancellor's imaginative and progressive policies of détente towards the countries of Eastern Europe would last one second beyond the moment when, in the inevitable terms of the Communist propagandists, a German finger was laid on the nuclear trigger?
When I was in Bonn at the end of last year talking with the Federal Chancellor he told me clearly and categorically that he wanted no part in such a European deterrent, and I hope that no one in this country would want any part in it either. Nuclear weapons are entirely irrelevant to the political unity of Europe. The greatness which I believe Europe can and will achieve when the Common Market is enlarged will lie in the genius for political organisation and technological skills, and on its ability to bring happiness and prosperity not only to its people but to those less fortunate in the rest of the world. The greatness

291
of Europe will not lie in any attempt to ape the military policies of the super Powers, about which, indeed, they themselves are at last beginning to have their doubts.
This brings me to my last comment for the moment on the question of Britain's role in Europe and of Europe's role in the world. It is being said, and it has been said in your Lordships' House, perhaps with some truth, that there is a majority of people in this country at this moment who are for one reason or another against our entry into the Common Market. Whether this is true or not, I have no means of knowing. Certainly I would not place any faith in opinion polls. Recent experience has left traumatic marks in that respect. I certainly would not place any great weight on the omniscience of the Press. And even if it could be conclusively shown that public opinion lay that way now, I doubt very much whether it will still lie that way in six months' time. One thing is certain, at least in my own mind: if there is a majority in this country against an enlargement of the European Community with Britain as a member of it, it is a majority largely among people of our own generation. The young people of this country are of an entirely different and more visionary turn of mind.
Like some other Members of your Lordships' House, I spend a good deal of my time at schools and universities, debating and talking with young people about the great issues of the day, mainly (because they are my own preoccupation) about defence, disarmament and the Common Market. I also have a regular television programme in Wales with young people, who are brought into the studio at random to discuss the issues of the day. From all these contacts I have formed a very clear opinion that, whatever may be said here or in another place, the young people of this country are firmly and unequivocally in favour of our entry into the Common Market. They want to break down the national barriers that have divided Europe for too long and have often hurled it into dreadful and destructive wars. The young people of this country want to see an end to narrow nationalism and to policies of blind self-interest. They want to see a new Europe
292
arising which can do something about the great problems which are going to beset the world in the last quarter of this century and in the beginning of the next.
I went only a few weeks ago to the University College of Wales in Cardiff to take part in a Union debate on the very simple motion, that Britain should join the Common Market—no terms, no conditions, a very simple motion. The debating hall was packed. I suppose that there were 400 to 500 young people present throughout the debate. They took part in it, as one might have expected, vividly, intelligently, articulately. They talked about world poverty, nuclear weapons, nationalism, regionalism, the price of food and the dangers of war. Their views, I suppose, were on the whole rather more radical than one would have found among an older audience debating the same subject or perhaps an audience outside Wales. Yet when the vote came to be taken, there was a clear and substantial majority in favour of Britain entering the Common Market. I believe that this is the reflection of the voice of the young people of this country and of other countries in Western Europe. Perhaps, following the example of my noble friend Lord Longford, I might address my last point more specifically to my own colleagues in the Labour Party than to anyone else. I believe that the voice of these young people is the voice of the future. I believe that if, through any deficiency of courage and of vision, we fail to listen to it now, we shall not easily be forgiven by a generation whose quality of life and perhaps whose very survival may depend on the decisions we shall take in the coming months.
7.25 p.m.
LORD STOKES: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the debate, with its emphasis on the balance of the broader political and economic aspects of entry to the E.E.C. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to contribute by dealing with the practical"nuts and bolts"aspect of entry as they will be faced by industry, speaking primarily of course for my own interest, which I must declare, the motor industry. If I may remind your Lordships, the motor industry accounts for over 10½ per cent. of total industrial production in Britain. It is responsible for the economic well-being

293
of large parts of the country, notably the Midlands, Lancashire, and a substantial part of Essex, and in addition it plays an important role in many other areas—for instance, Swindon, South Wales and Scotland. Well over one million people are directly employed in its activities, some of them fairly vociferous, and its repercussions affect the whole industrial fabric of our country.
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he suggested that the headquarters of British industry would gravitate towards European centres. I think the reverse of this will happen. In fact in our own case, anticipating entry into the Common Market, we have moved our European Office back to London this month. The motor industry is a fundamental part of our economy and it is also vital to British exports. It accounts, I do not need to remind your Lordships, for some 14½ per cent. of United Kingdom visible exports, which is worth a total of £1,158 million. I think that it is a good indicator of our overall economic situation. What the European economic market means to the motor industry may therefore be of some significance and interest in this debate.
I am afraid that I can speak only for one half of the British motor industry, the British half. In some respects, but I do not think in any fundamental respect, the American half might have different views. As I see it from an industrial aspect, we have three things to look at. Although they have been admirably dealt with in many previous speeches, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I repeat them. First, can we compete? Secondly, do we need the large market? Thirdly, What alternatives are there? These are questions that every industry must face, and I think that our industry may perhaps be a mirror of what will happen in other industries.
First of all, are we competitive? People who look only at the United Kingdom market and note the rise in imports may conclude that we are not competitive. I think that too many people also seem to think that the United Kingdom motor industry has a unique degree of protection. What are the facts? As regards tariffs, the E.E.C. tariff on our cars is marginally higher than our tariff on theirs—13·2 against 13 per cent. Here again as re-
294
gards our ability to compete even to-day under these approximately equal conditions, I feel that I must disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because the facts are that in 1970 we exported 158,000 cars to Europe against only 130,000 coming into this country.
On commercial vehicles it is generally accepted that the United Kingdom industry is among the most competitive in Europe. For this reason commercial vehicles were excluded from the Kennedy Round reductions under French pressure and tariffs are still prohibitively high at 22 per cent. I think that the United Kingdom should therefore benefit more than any other European producer from the elimination of commercial vehicle tariffs between the United Kingdom and the Common Market countries. This would further enhance the export ratio of the United Kingdom motor industry, already, I would remind your Lordships, one of the highest in the world. The share of imports is increasing in every country in the world which does not impose quotas on trade. England, despite recent increases, still has its fair share of such imports. No major European country has less than 20 per cent. of its car market going to imports. I think that this move towards imports in an inevitable trend as tariff barriers come down and people become more opulent and therefore want more variety.
In our planning we have always assumed that the share of imports into the United Kingdom market would eventually rise to around the European average of 25 per cent. Consequently, our strategy has been to more than offset this by our penetration of the European market itself, which, I remind the House, is five times bigger than the United Kingdom home or domestic market at the present moment. In my own company, for instance, sales in Continental Europe this year will be nearly twice those of three years ago. We estimate that by 1975 the figure will double again, and that by the end of the 'seventies the Continental market itself should be just as important, if not more important, than what we call our domestic market to-day. In these circumstances, we must support entry into Europe; it is vital to us. We must regard Europe as essentially our home market, and this has been the basis of our thinking. It follows that we must welcome any measure which

295
will help to turn Europe effectively into a single market and reduce the possibilities of tariffs or other barriers being erected between different European countries. I must emhasise that it is not only tariffs that we are worried about, but these other intangible barriers that can come up and so distort the normal trade.
Do we really need this large market? I think too many people fail to realise just how small in terms of requirements of large-scale industry the United Kingdom has become. The world motor industry is increasingly becoming concentrated into the hands of a dozen or less international manufacturers. The largest United Kingdom company comes about fifth or sixth in the world league; but it is the only one whose home base is in the United Kingdom. To-day the United Kingdom market takes only 50 per cent. of its production, with overseas sales of some £500 million going outside this country. But may I remind your Lordships that this country is the only car producing country of any significance whose home market has shown no net growth since 1964.
Until the Chancellor's recent measures our market was subject to Government-induced stagnation, which has greatly weakened our ability to compete effectively in world markets. Last year, the United Kingdom took only half as many new cars as West Germany—about one million here compared with two million in Germany alone. This gives any country such as Germany a tremendous manufacturing advantage. The situation of course looks much brighter now, as a result of Government measures which we warmly welcome. But if one projects forward to 1980, it seems very unlikely that the United Kingdom will be able to make up all the leeway lost over the last seven years. 'Therefore we believe that we have to increase our export percentage of production to much more than the 50 per cent. that we do now; and this means that we have to look to Europe as our biggest potential growth market.
I would remind your Lordships of the rate at which Europe is growing now. A doubling of United Kingdom car sales in Europe would in fact only mean increasing our overall share of the Continental market from 3 per cent. to 4·9 per cent. This demonstrates just how
296
large the European car market is, and how fast it is growing. In fact, it has already overtaken North America as the world's largest car market, and it will increase during the 1970s.
The insecurity of our British base, in isolation from Europe, is not the only factor which must affect our thinking. Two others, in particular, menace our future outside Europe: first, the growing threat of Japanese competition, based on a hitherto heavily protected Japanese home market; and secondly, the possible danger of protectionism in the United States, which is our second biggest export market. Hitherto the United States has been a low tariff market, but we all know that there are pressures there for greater protection, and also strong pressures to impose conditions on safety, and so on, which can only too easily be used as concealed methods of protection against imports. Without access to Europe the possible effect of these factors on our trade is absolutely frightening.
LORD BESWICK: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt. I may say that I am not in any way trying to belittle what the motor car industry has already done, so far as exports are concerned. But the noble Lord has not answered either of the two points that I ventured to put to him. First, there is the point about the increased labour costs that will face the noble Lord when we go into the E.E.C., with all the increases on food prices and so on. How is that going to affect his entry into Europe? Secondly, what will be the effect on his other world markets of this switch from one preference system to another?
LORD STOKES: I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. First of all, on the question of costs we are quite confident that if we can get the added volume through access to the bigger European market we can readily absorb the costs, as we know them, that are likely to be included in our manufacturing element. The second point I was coming to under the alternatives that we have if we do not enter into the European market.
What alternatives have we if we do not enter the E.E.C.? EFTA has been very little help to our motor industry. Norway, Switzerland, Portugal and Finland still

297
impose taxes on car imports from the United Kingdom, which are effectively tariffs. If we take the domestic car markets of the other three members of EFTA, Denmark, Austria and Sweden, since 1964 the combined market for new cars has shown no growth: in fact, it has actually fallen by nearly 4 per cent. In contrast, over the same period the E.E.C. domestic car market has grown by over 50 per cent. I think these figures speak for themselves, and they are reinforced when you remember that our own market in the United Kingdom has fallen by no less than 11½ per cent. during the same period.
The other important big potential market which historically used always to be in our minds is the Commonwealth. At one time it was of enormous importance to the United Kingdom motor industry. Over the last decade, however, the great majority of Commonwealth countries have recognised the power of the motor industry to generate wealth, and they have adopted policies to encourage local production. I think it is true to say that practically all Commonwealth countries, with the exception of Canada, now use import quotas or high tariffs, regardless of the country of origin, to protect or stimulate domestic production, and, in consequence. Commonwealth preferences are of very little real value to the United Kingdom motor industry. The Commonwealth markets account for only 13 per cent. of our overseas car sales, compared with 52 per cent. for Europe as a whole. We do not believe that the Commonwealth offers for us the same growth potential as Europe, and we have no reason to believe that entry into Europe will affect our exports to the Commonwealth one way or the other.
The other alternative that we have as a country is of course to go it alone. For us, as an industry, this is not a satisfactory proposition. I have already referred to the limitations of the United Kingdom market as a home base. Having this big home base and getting the volume will enable us to be competitive, despite the increased costs, which we do not think in any case will be higher than the costs German manufacturers or French manufacturers are currently having to bear through being inside the Common Market. I think there is plenty of evidence over the last few years, also,
298
that United States firms with investments both here and on the Continent have been putting their money into their Continetal plants, thus intensifying our big problem in this country of under-investment. British entry into the E.E.C. should provide a boost for capital investment, particularly by American firms in this country, for whom the United Kingdom should be an excellent base from which to attack the main European market. The"going it alone"seems to have no advantages to offer, and to bring many problems.
There is of course the other alternative that has been mentioned here to-day, of a large American free trade area (NAFTA). I do not think this to us has any significant advantages. We have to live in a real world, dealing with what is possible, and I do not think this can be taken seriously from an industrial or commercial point of view.
My Lords, if I may now conclude, for my industry, anyway, entry into Europe offers the prospect of advantages which no feasible alternative can even approach. We know that we can only reap these advantages of entry provided that we can get our labour relations under control and, as the noble Lord mentioned, keep our costs competitive. I believe there is an unprecedented effort going on at the present moment to solve these problems in the motor industry. The C.B.I. initiative, and the latest Government reflation measures, offer an opportunity to consolidate this work and to put our house in order; and this must be done very quickly, before it is too late for ever. I believe that entry into the E.E.C. will be a great challenge. I am not competent to speak about the terms, but I think the stake is so high that we we should never haggle at the terms one way or another. I believe that if we do not accept this opportunity of entry we have no alternative but to go into a state of permanent industrial recession.
7.39 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I am glad to follow my noble friend Lord Stokes, and I hope shortly to offer one or two comments on what he has said. In the meantime, I wish to speak quite subjectively on the question of the Common Market on behalf of the generation to which I belong: that is, the generation which has endured the stresses of two

299
world wars, the depression and unemployment of the inter-war years, and, more recently, enormous rises in the cost of living.
I recollect promises after the First World War, the homes to be built fit for heroes, the period after the Second World War when every capitalist nearly became a Socialist—and even The Times was referred to as the threepenny edition of the Daily Worker. All these are things in my memory and in the memory of other Members of your Lordships' House. But above all this. I am concerned about precisely what is there for the elderly people of this country? What is their future? What can they look forward to? Here I find myself at variance with the Government on the question of the Common Market. I know that in Britain and Europe there are airy promises about adjustments, and so on, to be made in pensions. Soma: of us are a bit old in the tooth—we have listened to that sort of talk for a long, long time—and we usually found that the event has long been overtaken, in so far as the benefit is concerned, by the cost. Take the example of the recent much vaunted increase in pensions. Before we get it it is already more than eroded by the increased cost of living; so that by the time we come to 1973 and then wait another two years, just what is going to happen? Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Chalfont: that is why the older people of this country are a little sceptical about the advantages of the Common Market, and why they and I want more cast-iron assurances given if we in this country are going to accept the Common Market and all that is involved, particularly in the early stages of our joining. This is the period which we shall be concerned with. Many an elderly person, unless something is done, will have as his epitaph"He died waiting for the benefits of the Common Market"and I want to see that the elderly do not of necessity have that epitaph. I do riot want any airy promise, I want a more concrete assurance.
For example, we have been told—and I have never really understood this—that there is an enormous administrative problem in altering the rate of pension and that the process takes nearly a couple of years. This is sheer nonsense. All you have to do is to make a £5 voucher
300
worth £6 and you cash it to-morrow for £6, or as and from a certain date a figure of £5 becomes £6 or £7. There is no administrative problem of issuing a lot of new books and that sort of thing. But no Government want to do this; they would have to do it much too quickly. But I want to see it done quickly; I want it done in such a way that the older people of this country may not feel all the disadvantages which they do at the present time about the prospects of entry into the Common Market. These feelings are very real and very definite. What we want, above all, is to calculate the basic needs of elderly people—and they cannot afford much else—such as food, fuel and shelter; and by and large they have not much balance left after that.
We already know the position in regard to shelter. Fair rents are not going to have a very beneficial effect so far as elderly people are concerned. We know they can apply for a means test but many of them will not wish to do so if they can help it. We already know that the deliberate policy of the Government has pushed up food prices. They may deny it, but the fact is that the change from subsidies to import levies of necessity pushes up the price of food. That is a fact. I am not saying how great it is at the present time. Equally, we get the apology that because of the rise in world food prices the impact of going into the Common Market will not be quite so bad; but the impact of world food prices is being felt by elderly people now, and they will feel it more, whatever the increase is, when we go into the Common Market.
Equally on this question, while there is a possibility, indeed a probability, that world food prices will fall—they have done in the past; they have fluctuated up and down—the answer is that if we are going into the Common Market there will be no question of food prices falling; they will be maintained and the probability is that they will be increased. This is essentially so. The different E.E.C. target figures for most of the things we eat and need, so far as elderly people are concerned anyway, are much higher than the present figures guaranteed to our farmers. This means that the guaranteed figures will rise to the E.E.C. figures. Equally for food imports, we

301
shall pay to the Common Market Agriculture Fund for the general benefit of agriculture, but not of British agriculture. The net effect is to increase the cost to people when they go to buy their weekly shopping. While this may be inevitable, we may have to accept it, at least we ought to recognise it, and recognise the responsibility we owe to a particular group of people who, because of their relatively low fixed incomes or pensions, will be greatly affected. We ought to do something about this matter.
There are omissions in the White Paper and in the short pamphlet Britain into Europe. For example, we have the British contribution and we are given the figures up to 1977. But the figures are available up to 1980. In 1980 it is anticipated that we shall get back from the Common Market £100 million, exactly the same as in 1977, but that our contribution will be about three times that amount. Virtually the whole increase in the Common Market contribution in 1980 will be met by Britain. I am not suggesting that this is a burden we cannot carry, but I suggest that it does not seem to be a good piece of bargaining if we are told that this is the best that can be done. I do not think it is the best that can be done by any means. The Community cost, the Community budget, is automatically increased; but if at the end of the day when our contribution is either 22½ per cent. or 25 per cent. according to the argument that goes on about it, if Britain is to be responsible for the whole of that increase and if we get nothing more back from the Community budget I cannot visualise this being a particularly good deal.
I should like to say a word or two about economic growth. It is true, of course, that economic growth in Europe is greater than the economic growth in this country, for all sorts of reasons. It depends what sort of level you start from, when you talk about economic growth—whether you start from zero or halfway up the ladder. These figures are important. It is equally true that in the second five years, that is from 1965 to 1970, economic growth was greater only in Italy than it was in the previous five years. In other words, in other parts of the Community, and in Britain, too, economic growth was less from 1965 to 1970 than it was from 1960 to 1965.
302
We have also been told, on what one might term reasonably independent authority, what is going to happen to us in the near future. Due to the very low rate of investment which we have suffered in this country we have to achieve a massive rate of reinvestment in British industry if we are to be competitive and not subject to an influx of goods against which we have no reply if we go into the Common Market. Where is the expansion coming from? Where is the money coming from? Who is going to do the investing? It is true the Government have said that they are doing something about the investment policy, but it is getting a little late in the day. You cannot invest to-day and see the result to-morrow. The most we can hope from investment now is that it might possibly show some result in a couple of years' time. It is not only a question of when you put the money in; there is also the question of when you get the machinery to produce in greater quantities and with more efficiency. Therefore, we have this question of the cost of expansion. We have of necessity to expand, but the expansion itself will throw a considerable burden on the balance of payments and it has been suggested from independent sources that before we go in, in order to get on to equal trading terms with the Community, it will be necessary to devalue. I know that the Government will deny any possibility of devaluation—all Governments do, right up to the eleventh hour, the 59th minute and the 59th second—but it is quite a distinct possibility. I should like to be sure that the Government have given some thought to the possibilities that might arise here.
Regarding the movement of capital, would disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stokes. Movements of capital, so far as Britain is concerned, have always been outward and never inward: in fact various Governments have had to put restrictions on the movement of capital to avoid denuding Britain of the necessary capital for reinvestment in her own industries. So when we get our freedom in regard to Europe, while this may not affect the movement of capital to Commonwealth countries and so on, we shall find that the European countries are much more insular in this respect than we are in this country, who have always had an

303
international outlook on capital investment. Therefore, as my noble friend Lord Beswick has said, I think the movement will centre itself more in Europe than in Britain, with all the consequences of employment which will flow with it to the Continent and from Britain.
I agree that this is quite contrary to the position expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, and I appreciate that British Leyland is a British-based company, of which we are all very proud. There can be no question of any likely movement of capital there, but there may be a restiction on the capital market on which they may want to draw because of these pressures from the Continent. I also recognise that, in spite of what the noble Lord has said about difficulties concerning the Commonwealth and other parts of the world, the company already have well-established bases, and although they will not be perhaps of direct value to the country they will be of indirect value, quite apart from the question of direct exports.
As regards exports in the car industry, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern about the low rate of growth in this country, but we must recognise that although we have to restrict expansion in this country because of the inflationary situation, that restriction has to be placed where it can do the least damage to the country's resources as a whole. Therefore, much as he may regret it, I think the noble Lord may be obliged to accept that this is not altogether unreasonable so far as the motor industry of this country is concerned. On the whole, I accept his view that the motor industry will undoubtedly prosper as a result of entry into Europe, but I am not at all sure that this will apply to many other industries with which we are vitally concerned. For instance, may I ask a question about fisheries. We gather that the question of fisheries remains to be settled and also that there is a divergence of opinion between Norway and the rest of the applicant countries and Europe as to what the probable fishing limits ought to be. Norway wants to retain the 12-mile limit, and we are prepared to settle for something less.
I understand that the Government have expressed the view that whatever
304
may be agreed will apply equally to all countries. If Norway insists on a 12-mile limit as being conditional to her entry into the Community, what are we in Britain going to do about it. Do we back them up and say, "All right; if Norway does not get an agreement on fisheries and does not go in, we do not go in either"? Because that is what we ought to be committed to. Whether we are or not I do not know. We should have regard for the EFTA countries of which we have been very glad during the period when we tried to make up something instead of the Common Market but with perhaps not quite the degree of success that we might have wished for. So the EFTA countries are important, and it seems to me that before we say, "Yes", and sign on the dotted line, we ought to be satisfied that the terms that are arranged between the Common Market countries, the enlarged Common Market countries, and the remaining EFTA countries are satisfactory.
One of the things that we have not yet talked about a great deal is the effect of our entry into Europe on foreign and defence policies. Here I may find myself in some difficulty in what I want to express. Of course, we have had a grandiose Government expression about the retention of a presence East of Suez, and we have talked about the defence of our trade routes in the Indian Ocean and the other things that flow from that. Yet in the Mediterranean we were unable to send up a couple of fighter aircraft from Malta to protect a British aircraft, which presumably we could have done. We did not do so: I do not know why—perhaps they stop at five o'clock. However, it seems to me that British prestige and the protection of lives which have been committed to British care deserve something more than was done in this particular case.
This brings me to the question of Britain's role and prestige in the world. Sooner than see the spectacle, as I regard it, of a British Foreign Minister grovelling in the sand of the Libyan Desert, I would prefer that we entered into a United States of Europe, because at least we should remain reasonably identifiable. While I do not want to use this argument at all as regards the Common Market, I can see the ultimate

305
advantage of Britain's going into a United States of Europe in order that British prestige, for what it is worth, may be better maintained than it is at the present time.
7.58 p.m.
LORD PLOWDEN: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be able to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Blake, on their maiden speeches. It is sad that the application of the Addison Rules has prevented us from hearing the noble Lord, Lord Robens, earlier, and the quality of his speech makes one hope that he will speak often. The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Blake, makes one hope that he will come often from Oxford to speak in your Lordships' House.
In a debate on the Common Market on August 3, 1961, I said that I was a convert to the view that we should join the Common Market. Since then I have remained firmly of the view that this is the right thing for this country to do. I support our entry into the European Economic Community basically for three reasons. The first concerns the economic advantages, as I see them—and by that one means that entry will increase the rate of growth of the British economy, because entry will give us an assured access to a mass market. The noble Lord, Lord Stokes, has spoken most eloquently of the advantages for the mass production industries, such as the motorcar industry, from such an assured access. I, as an industrialist, fully agree with him. Although there are obvious advantages for large firms, there are also real advantages for small specialised firms. Small firms will obviously gain from the improved economic climate in this country, but those specialising in high technology will, as a result of having access to far more customers, be able to develop their technology more easily than they are able to do in a smaller British market.
In a study made by Professor Winnacker, then Chairman of the German chemical firm, Hoechst, and me, for M. Monnet's Action Committee in 1969, we wrote:
" The size of market will also create an environment in which small but highly specialised technological firms can operate successfully."
306
This we wrote both as a study of the European Market and also as a result of our study of the American market. I stress this particularly because people seem to think that the Common Market is really something only for the large firms and not for small firms. As the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, pointed out last night, there will undoubtedly be opportunities for the City of London to increase invisible exports. We shall also, I believe, gain advantages from the phasing out of sterling as a world reserve currency, which has in my view placed an undue burden upon the economy of this country. A further result will be an increase of American investment in this country. There is no doubt that American firms, when given a choice, prefer the environment of this country—the common language, common law and so on.
My second reason is the disadvantages of being excluded from a large trading area. If we do not enter the Common Market there is no alternative large area which we can join. There are great attractions in the idea of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area, but anyone who knows Canada and the United States well knows that there is not the slightest interest in those countries in an organisation of that kind. The Commonwealth, whatever the political advantages, is certainly far too disparate to offer any possibility of an economic trading area.
As the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, pointed out, there is a real risk of protectionism growing in the world and reversing the trend towards freer world trade that has prevailed since the last War. This comes partly from the policies pursued in the Common Market, particularly the agricultural policy. It is an illusion to think that this country on its own, outside the Common Market, can do much to reverse this trend. As a member of the Common Market I feel sure we could influence the market towards freer trade and a more sensible agricultural policy. If we are excluded, and the world becomes more protectionist, and there is a depression—and one cannot say that that will never occur—as an industrialist I should be extremely frightened about the results for British industry in a world with tariff barriers round large blocs, and ourselves competing with the Japanese and selling in the underdeveloped markets of the world.

307
As the noble Lord, Lord McFadzean, pointed out yesterday, the possibility of the economy of this country becoming a specialist economy, such as that of Sweden or Switzerland, is really impossible, except perhaps in the long term.
My third reason is what the White Paper calls the "broad political perspectives". I do not need to emphasise the merits of Western civilisation and the part that the United Kingdom has ployed in its development. Until 1914, when Europe started to tear itself to pieces, Western European civilisation was Western civilisation. But since the last war power and influence have gradually slipped away from super Powers, and I do not think that that is a good thing. Europe cannot equal in military power the super Powers, nor indeed should it try to do so, but with the growing isolationism on the part of the United States, Europe, within NATO, will have to contribute more to its own defence. In the world of ideas, political, technical and sociological, Europe still has a great deal to give and more to contribute than any other part of the world. This country has a major part to play in this. That part can be played to much greater effect, I submit, as a member of the Common Market, in conjunction with the Six, as a unity of Ten than on its own.
I find it difficult to understand the argument of those who say that they want to enter the Common Market but that the terms are not good enough. If they say that it will not be possible for us to compete within the Market because we are too weak, what do they think is going to happen to us if we are outside? We cannot opt out of competition; we cannot draw back on ourselves and be self-sufficient; we have to compete with the Common Market and other people, whether we are in or out. If we are outside we shall have the European tariffs against us. If they feel that the arrangements made with the sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth are bad, those countries have expressed themselves as satisfied with them. Why should we be more royalist than the king? If they feel that we have betrayed the underdeveloped Commonwealth countries, those countries have the opportunity of association or of special trade agree
308
ments. If they feel that we have not done well by New Zealand, the Government of that country has expressed itself as satisfied. If they feel that we have gone against the interest of, or have treated unreasonably, Australia and Canada, as an industrialist I know that the Governments of those two countries look after their own interests whenever they think that they are threatened. When they think it is right they reduce imperial preferences, or increase tariffs. I make no complaint of that; they are looking after their own interests. We all recognise the great contribution that those two countries have made in two world wars. But in peace time their contribution to defence is proportionately far less than that of this country, with higher standards of living than this country. In 1969, as a percentage of gross national product our contribution towards defence was 5·1 per cent., Australia's 4 per cent. and Canada's 2·5 per cent. I am not complaining about that but am merely pointing out that when they think it is in their interests to take a certain line, they do so.
Far more able people than I have dealt with the question of sovereignty this afternoon. If there is a fear that the European Economic Community is too socialist or too capitalist, we have capitalists and socialists in this country. If they believe that by delay better terms will be obtained, this is pure speculation. There is a strong reason against delay, or against even hoping that we shall come back and negotiate again. This country and, in particular, British industry, has for over ten years been wondering whether it is going to enter the European Economic Community, and many decisions of vital importance have been held up because of that. I do not think that we should delay any longer.
It would be foolish to deny that there will not be difficulties on our entry, although I think that they are exaggerated. There will be an extra burden on the balance of payments, but, unlike the T.U.C., I do not believe one can foretell what that burden is likely to be way into 1980. Certainly when I was a Treasury official we were not very good at estimating burdens over the next 12 months, let alone the next 10 years. There will be an increase in the cost of food, but again not nearly as much as it would have been had we entered in 1961.

309
And there will be adjustments to be made in British industry. In my own industrial group which consists of nearly 100 firms, large and small—some very small indeed—we have been studying the advantages and disadvantages of entering the Community, and we are quite sure that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
However, all change is uncomfortable. All people, and perhaps particularly the British people, dislike change and are reluctant to change. But progress comes from change; in fact, progress is about change. Like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who has only one Latin quotation, I have only one historical reference—and the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has used that already to-day. But I will repeat it. Professor Toynbee has said that all civilisations, all organisations, large and small, at some stage are challenged and upon the response they make to that challenge depends their future. I do not believe that the British people are decadent or in decline, as some commentators appear to believe. But since the war we have become inward-looking. We all know the reasons. We won the war; we have given up an Empire; and the reward for these things appears to be permanent difficulties. We have been under challenge, but perhaps we have not recognised that challenge. I believe that entry into Europe will make clear that challenge, and I am quite sure that the British people will respond to it.
Rather than the pessimists, I prefer to believe what a shop steward in one of our works said to me a fortnight ago. Having asked me what my views were about the Common Market, and having been told, he said that he had been thinking about it and he himself was against it. He did not like foreigners, although he told me he was going to Spain for his holiday. He thought he would have to pay more for his food, and that he might have to change his job or that something might happen to him in his employment."But ", he said,"having thought about it, I believe it will offer greater opportunities to my children, and for that reason I am prepared to back it and go along with it." That was an extremely mature judgment, and basically it is for that reason that I support the
310
White Paper and our entry into the Common Market.
8.14 p.m.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, I wonder whether we have appreciated sufficiently how much the economic progress in the Community is due to the inspiration of the liberal philosophy which moulded the thinking of its leaders. They were a small group of men drawn together to put into practice theories which at the time the last war ended were not very popular nor attracting a great deal of attention. Old theories which had been successful in the past were rediscovered and adapted to the present. In France they went back to Quesnoy, to the pysiocrats and to de Tocqueville; in Germany to the old Vienna School and the teaching of liberals like the late Professors Rappard and Röpke in Geneva and Professor von Mises. Without these influences there would have been no"Prosperity through competition"from Chancellor Erhardt, or new franc, or Economic Council in France under the direction of Jacques Rueff, now Chancellor of the Académie Francaise, or Italian President Einaudi. It is an astonishing picture of philosophical thinking influencing the development of the economy of the Continent. Despite many heated arguments, the scene has remained exciting and the decisions that have been made interesting.
This country has been largely outside the influence of these ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, made a gallant attempt with his treatise published in 1952, but there was no political Party to interpret the basic message, to adapt and apply it in a contemporary setting. This is why I think that all through our approach to the Common Market has been too much concerned with the smaller issues. The Prime Minister in his initiative seems to have caught the philosophical theme. The idea that anyone other than the Government has any responsibility for anything still strikes a note almost of incredulity. This will not be found to be so in the Community.
My Lords, I have always felt that, in their fundamental attitudes to the future of Europe, Britain and France were much nearer together than was generally recognised. Both have a history of which they are proud and traditions upon which they wish to continue

311
to build. Both, I believe, are likely to be content that the executive power should remain firmly in the hands of the Council of Ministers, with the Commission in Brussels their Civil Service, and Specialists to advise, to secure harmonisation and to execute the policy decisions of the Council of Ministers. So long as the European Parliament remains a consultative Assembly no clash with national Parliaments need be feared. For this reason I think what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about sovereignty is quite clear. I do not think that in this set-up a European President is necessary, for in any external negotiations the chairman of the Council of Ministers is well qualified to speak for the Community, as he does on many occasions.
My Lords, it has perhaps not been made sufficiently clear that we are not proposing to adhere to the Treaty of Rome as it was signed by the Six members of the Community in 1957, but to a Treaty modified by agreements between the parties, particularly in 1966 and 1967. But to avoid confusion and possible controversy at a future date I should like to ask that those modifications should be more precisely defined. My request for clarification includes defining the circumstances in which the rule of unanimity in decisions of the Council of Ministers is to apply. Some commentators are talking as if we are entitled to object to anything we do not like. I do not think this is quite the intention of the modification which has been made to the Treaty, but for this reason I would like to see it set out as an addition to the White Paper.
President de Gaulle, when he was in power, insisted that the British attitude on certain matters of importance should be declared prior to our entry. It is a great tribute to the Prime Minister that the present President of France is satisfied that any unsettled questions should be worked out in the enlarged Community. In my view this is a demonstration of the confidence of the French President in our Prime Minister and his colleagues. But this decision makes it desirable that we should seek some clarification of the Government's ideas, and I should like to put one or two questions on points on which I should like to be made clear.
312
The first concerns the individual in the wider setting. The wider the setting in which an individual finds himself the more he is likely to be overlooked. We have been told that it will take a year for Parliament to approve measures necessary to conform to current Common Market practice. Side by side with this I think we need a general strengthening of the rights of the individual. Our citizens enjoy certain special rights in regard to arrest and the time within which anyone arrested has to be charged with an offence or released. This same protection is not available in some of the countries with which we shall be associated and in which our citizens will enjoy the right of free movement. The European Convention on Human Rights is an inadequate document, and it is this that I would ask the Government to consider. So far as I know it has not been ratified by France, for reasons which the French Government consider fundamental to their authority. But in any case it is not adequate on the point I have mentioned, and I would like to ask for an assurance that the Government will immediately seek an agreed and an acceptable revision of this Convention.
The second point I would like to raise is on the question of the levy. I do not want to go into the amount of the levy that we have to pay on imported food because this has been argued ad nauseam. I have a belief—and I do not know whether it is right or wrong, because there have been changes in the agricultural policy in the Community from time to time—but I have the idea that when the agricultural policy was negotiated between the members of the Six, Germany secured a maximum figure beyond which her contribution should not rise. If this is so I would like to ask whether a maximum figure would not be preferable to an argument under paragraph 96 of the White Paper. Such a solution might remove a lot of the fears of those who are opposing entry because of uncertainty on this matter.
The third question concerns our share of the Community budget. I do not want to argue about the calculation of our share, although I should have liked it to have been worked out a little differently. The contribution will be small at the present time, but I do not like paragraph 8 of Annexe A, which seems to

313
me unnecessarily to open the door for a vast expansion of that budget, in which case our contribution could be a very considerable sum. We know how easily budgets in a similar category to the Community budget can escalate—to use a nasty word.
My last question is, can we take it for granted that there will be a European identity card securing free movement for holders of the card? I think it is important from the start that ordinary people should handle some symbol of their membership of this Community. Incidentally, relating to that question, who is dealing with the question of equivalence of professional qualifications, degrees and diplomas, which has been on the agenda of Ministers of Education for years but which I understand remains unsettled? I believe a list of difficulties has been complied, but no suggestions how to resolve them even, say, five years hence.
Finally, may I refer to the fact that much has been made of the influence that an enlarged Community speaking with one voice could have on matters of concern to the world. Here I should like to make a suggestion. The occasion of the coming into being of the enlarged Community in 1973 will be quite an event. Would not this be a good opportunity to make some declaration of the aims of the enlarged Community? Would not the preparation of such a declaration between now and 1973 be a useful exercise in spelling out what M. Couve de Murville calls the dream of a united Europe?
Perhaps I may be allowed to make a few suggestions on matters which might be thought about for inclusion in such a declaration. The first suggestion is that it should express the desire of the enlarged Community to put at the service of the world the experience enshrined in what we call our common cultural heritage, and to make clear that we would welcome discussions with representatives of any nations on problems with which they may at any time be confronted. Having extended the usefulness of the European convention, as I have suggested, the enlarged Community might use its influence to help associated and independent African countries, black and white, to bring into being an African equivalent.
Personally, I should like to see included some regret on the results of the Yalta decisions, and an expression of the Com-
314
munity's readiness to enter into discussions with Russia to try to achieve a happier relationship in what will still be a divided Europe. I would suggest to your Lordships that the Congress of Vienna in 1815 did a much better job than the Conference at Yalta. Perhaps that was because it was left to the end of the war and did not take place in the middle of the war.
The last suggestion follows the reference to the difficulties of the older generation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter. It would be a reference to the necessity for monetary reform in relation to the problem of inflation.
While on the problem of inflation, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether the 60,000 million Euro-dollars of which Europe has had the benefit, and perhaps the disadvantage, over recent years is considered by the Government as one of the causes of the rapid rise in inflation in this country, as well as on the Continent? I have asked this question of a number of people who deal with Eurodollars, but, quite naturally, they are not anxious to answer it. But at a time when national Governments are trying to curb inflation by restricting credit, it could be that 60,000 million Euro-dollars may have some bearing upon the problem. In due course, if not to-day perhaps to-morrow, the Government might like to express a view on this matter.
One of the reasons why I think monetary reform is a"must"in any definition of aims is because Bretton Woods Agreement, which, after all, was intended to be an interim measure, has now completely broken down, being completely disregarded. This problem is worthy of very serious and prompt attention as one of the first aims of the enlarged Community. What seems to me to be necessary is a small sacrifice of sovereignty (the only sacrifice of sovereignty that I am advocating) to honesty in the acceptance of rules applicable to the issue and full convertibility of currencies for which national Governments are responsible. The declaration that I should like to see, while containing some practical proposals, would, above all, give expression to the idealism as well as to the usefulness which has always prompted the more inspired advocates of European unity.
8.50 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, we have been listening to a thoughtful, forward-looking and, I think, physically courageous speech, and I am quite sure that when Members read it in the OFFICIAL REPORT they will find many suggestions in it worthy of consideration. I would say this to my noble friend Lord Grantchester. If that speech is read in twenty years' time it will be seen to be an anticipation of the necessary steps to bring about a liberalisation of Europe. I content myself with that comment at the moment, but I shall be referring to my noble friend's speech later in my remarks.
Ever since I listened in another place to the report which the present Prime Minister made of his negotiations about the Common Market I have felt urgently involved. As I shall indicate, my interest arose much earlier, but since that time, and indeed since the time of the premiership of Harold Macmillan, this issue has been perhaps the most momentous before Parliament. I have been in this difficulty, that I have found myself in sympathy with many of the approaches and many of the criticisms made on both sides of this controversy. For example, I am a European, but that does not mean that one is not an internationalist. One's concern for peoples of all the continents, and particularly for the underprivileged in other continents, remains.
Historically we are a part of Europe. We are the children of Greek and Roman cultures; we are the heirs to the ethical teachings of the Christian religion. That is an influence which has been exerted all over Europe. In addition, there are two other great influences which we sometimes do not recognise. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has referred to liberal philosophers since the last war; but the character of this country, our sense of democracy and of freedom, have been tremendously influenced by the political philosophers of the last century, both in France and in this country. That is an attribute of Europe which is different, because of our acceptance of those principles to a great degree, compared to other continents of the world.
Noble Lords on the other side of the House will probably not accept my second suggestion of a formative influence on Europe's mind and spirit; it is the
316
influence of Karl Marx and of the Socialist movement. One need not necessarily accept all the teachings of Karl Marx, but the Socialist movement which arose from the middle of the last century has had an influence on European politics which we can hardly exaggerate. I am aware of it every time I hear in this House the Oath-taking by a new Member. He is commanded to be present regularly in order to deal with grievances which may arise from three subjects. The first is the Monarchy; the second is the defence of this country; and the third is the Church. Those three subjects dominated Parliament before the Socialist movement of the last century, and its influence at the beginning of this century changed the whole character of Parliament not only in this country but in Europe. Noble Lords on the other Benches may decry that influence of Marx and the Socialist movement, but it has been profound in its influence in Europe.
The second subject about which I have differed from many who have opposed the Common Market has been on the issue of sovereignty. This has been discussed with great authority by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I would only say to-day that, in the small technical world in which we live, the nation State, as a political entity, is absolutely out of date; we must move towards wider associations. In that respect I would say two things: first, there is a danger, as illustrated in the present arrangements for the European Community, that as we advance to a wider sphere it may become distant and lose contact with the peoples and become undemocratic. The present political structure of the European Community, with its technological commission at Brussels, its meeting of Ministers (one Minister from each Government with the power of veto), and a Parliament which has no authority, cannot be a possible solution to the problem of democracy.
The other point I should like to make in relation to the problem of sovereignty and wider loyalty is this. While we are moving towards wider associations than the sovereign State, equally important is participation of the people at the very roots of their lives. We must find, as we advance towards a solution of these political problems, a combination of wider

317
association with that individual personal participation in membership of the Community which is so eminently desirable.
The third issue on which I very often find myself differing from those among my fellow Socialists who are opposed to the European Market, is the indifference which they show to European Socialists. For many years, I served on the Executive of the Second Socialist International. I am probably the only man living now who had that intimate association with Socialist leaders of that time—Karl Kautsky, Emil Vandervelde, Camille Huysmons, and the great Otto Bauer from Austria. Even before then I was a friend of Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg from Germany, whose courageous opposition to the First World War was one of the greatest political heroisms of which I know. Rosa Luxemburg has always been my political heroine. If Lenin had listened to her, the whole story of the Soviet Union, and indeed of the world, might have been so different. I feel a little hurt when from fellow Socialists there has been some expression of isolation from our fellow Socialists in Europe.
My interest in this issue began when I was a founder member of the Movement for a United Socialist States of Europe. It arose after the world war in the radical sentiment of that time. It preceded the European Movement with which Winston Churchill, Mr. Duncan Sandys and—I think I am right about the name; perhaps my Liberal colleagues will correct me if necessary—Lady Rhys Williams—
LORD BYERS: And Lord Layton and Violet Bonham-Carter.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, and others were associated. The Movement for a United Socialist States of Europe became instead a Socialist movement for a United Europe and it associated itself with the wider European movement. At that moment I resigned. I was in favour of a United Socialist States of Europe; I was not in favour of a United Capitalist States of Europe. I believe that represents the fundamental issue which is now before us.
I suppose I could be described as an old-fashioned Socialist, because I believe in the social ownership of the economy, because I believe in industrial democracy
318
through the control of industry by those who are employed in it, because I believe that the wealth of industry should be equitably distributed to end luxury in the presence of poverty, because I believe in the international brotherhood of all peoples and am against every kind of racial discrimination. While that was the Socialism at the beginning of this century, I am quite confident that it will also be the Socialism before we reach the end of the century. Everywhere throughout the world to-day new generations are throwing aside the values of our capitalist society, and are looking forward to the kind of fundamental changes which I have indicated.
But we have to acknowledge that despite Social Democratic Governments in Europe and Labour Governments in this country, capitalism to-day is materially stronger than it was 20 or 30 years ago. Its new strength lies in its centralisation and concentration, not only in the merging of firms into great combines, but in the financiers who are behind them. It is extraordinary that 40 per cent. of all United States' direct investment in Germany, France and Britain comes from three combinations—General Motors, Ford's and Standard Oil of New Jersey, or Esso. The concentration is even greater than those three firms, because behind them are financiers who have holdings in each.
This development has taken place mostly in America, and the Common Market is largely a reaction to American economic development in this respect. European bankers, directors of great firms and E.E.C. officials have all urged larger concentration in Europe to meet this American competition. UNICE, which is the Common Market employer's association, and the International Chamber of Commerce have both requested legislation to facilitate these combinations. European banking, insurance, chemical industries, electronics, synthetic textiles and civil aviation in Europe are all passing into the hands of these large capitalist dominations. The result, my Lords, has been that the Common Market has become a consortium of financiers and combines, and the support which is being given in Britain to the Common Market comes largely from the same sections of our community. Noble Lords who read

319
the advertisement in The Times yesterday, in which the leading figures in the great capitalist combinations of this country were supported to a remarkable degree by the great financiers, the great bankers—those who are behind this development of capitalist concentration—will have seen that it is these interests in this country which are now supporting the Common Market proposals. I just remark that how a socialist can support this new combination of capitalist power passes my imagination.
It is suggested that we socialists should go into Europe in order that we should support our comrades there in their struggle against this capitalism. I have already indicated my sympathetic feeling towards them; but, my Lords, we have to recognise that, unfortunately, the Social Democratic Parties of Europe, and in the past our own Labour Party here, have given up the challenge against capitalism. Aneurin Bevan's phrase, that "the commanding heights of the economy" must be taken over by the community, we have nearly forgotten. But I am certain, as one of the older generation who is in association with the younger generation to-day—perhaps closer than many of those of middle age—that before the end of this century (indeed, I hope before Labour comes to power in this country again) there will be a dedication to those fundamental socialist purposes to which I have referred.
I want to say just two things more, very briefly indeed. There are two consequences of this powerful capitalist domination of Europe. We can probably say to-day that 300 families control the larger part of the economy in which 350 million people now live in Europe. But it is not only a domination of Europe: it is a domination of the rest of the world; it is a domination of the developing countries, a domination of the Third World. In 1958 the developing countries bought 27 per cent. of all the E.E.C. exports. In 1967 they bought only 14·7 per cent., and of that the privileged associated States had only 3·5 per cent. Anyone who knows the working of capitalist industry and of this powerful financial concentration in Europe, demanding foodstuffs and raw materials from the developing countries, knows that they, with their
320
power, will get those things at the lowest price they possibly can; and the low price for the foodstuffs and the raw materials of the developing countries is largely responsible for the increasing poverty from which they are suffering.
The second point to which I want to refer is this. I am scared that a united and strengthened capitalism in Western Europe will endanger the peace of Europe. I am frightened that it may lead to an intensification of the difficulties between Western and Eastern Europe. It is relying on NATO Powers. Despite all the assurances given, I am sure that unless we make a breakthrough in nuclear arms the European Community will become armed with the nuclear deterrent—and that at a time when the hope is arising of some association between Western and Eastern Europe. I am hoping for a synthesis which will be possible when we have a socialist movement in Europe seeking to challenge the power of capitalism; a synthesis based upon the idea of the social ownership of the economy in Western Europe and the liberalisation of the Communist countries of Eastern Europe. Perhaps my deepest fear of present developments is that the European Community and the Common Market may lead to a barrier in that direction, which I believe is the hope of Europe and indeed, as it extends, the hope of the world.
9.8 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, I do not feel qualified to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his survey of the evils of capitalism, but I will agree with him that anyone alive to the traditions and greatness of Britain must ponder seriously the consequences of our joining the Community. They will be many. There will be economic consequences about which I hope to say little, because I am not sure that I fully understand them—nor I think can even the experts really forecast the future with any meaningful accuracy. I would only say that I regard the cost of living argument as irrelevant as well as unworthy, but I am not enamoured of the artificial subsidisation of the Common Agricultural Policy, and one one must face the fact that a heavy price may be called for in terms of financial contribution and balance-of-payments burden.

321
The political consequences are even more difficult to foresee, but, despite the explanations we have had during this debate, there is legitimate concern on the question of sovereignty and on the fact that our signature to the Treaty, if and when it is made, will be irrevocable. Over a period there will undoubtedly be major changes in our relations with Commonwealth countries, both in patterns of trade and in political association. Finally, I suspect that if we succeed in our application there will ultimately be something of a social revolution; and here is one point of sympathy which I feel with something which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said yesterday: that the development runs the risk of accelerating all those aspects of modern life, of this modern machine age, which I most dislike—bigness in organisation leading to anonymity of government, great conurbations, everything done in concrete for speed and efficiency, everything done for the mass and not for the individual.
But, having said that, perhaps I could now say how glad I am to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because unlike most of the other speakers in this debate my words can have a spurious air of novelty because I am, I must confess, an ardent supporter of the application and strongly hope that it will succeed. In the first place, to deal with the last point that I made, surely it is a phantasy to think that we can preserve the elegance of a past age just by standing still. There is, I believe, an alternative to joining the Community, but only one. I do not myself believe that we could hope for very long just to"go it alone ". I believe that the only real alternative to joining the Community is to become in effect, in one form or another a satellite of the United States. Great as is my affection for that country and strong as is my hope that we shall be able to preserve what the Prime Minister happily termed our natural relationship with that great country, this is an alternative that I, and many others, would not relish. Therefore I reach the conclusion that the Community offers the most favourable prospect of our being able to preserve what is best in our way of life.
As to the Commonwealth, I must state quite firmly that I would never have supported our joining the Community unless we had been able to achieve what
322
I should regard as honourable agreements with New Zealand and with the sugar islands. Frankly—and I had a great deal to do with this at one time—I never dared hope that I should live to see the day when the New Zealand Government would positively welcome the arrangements that we have achieved. I do not think that many others had such a hope. But a miracle has occurred; we have lived to see the day. And so the most awkward problem on the economic side, that of relations with the Commonwealth countries, has been overcome. For the rest, what I had in mind to say was ably put by a former colleague of mine, Lord Radcliffe-Maud, and I need only say that I am satisfied that the Commonwealth as a whole stands to gain on balance, both in trading opportunities and in investment prospects (and this touches on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, just now) for the developing world with the Community as a whole. It also stands to gain because Britain's increased strength and ability to help will be of enormous benefit to the Commonwealth. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord McFadzean, said yesterday in his admirable maiden speech.
However, my Lords, there are two Commonwealth countries that will, or may, face some hardship, particularly in certain sensitive areas. They are Canada and Australia. It is regrettable that any difficulty of this sort should arise, but this was always foreseen and it has been discounted in advance over years. In any case, time has been given for adjustments and transitional periods have been arranged. Canada and Australia are both thriving countries with a thrusting economy and a growing industrial base. Both have already diverted a considerable amount of trade from Britain. I must say quite frankly, perhaps even brutally, to my many Canadian and Australian friends that in the end I think it is the economics of Canada and Australia which will have to take care of any affected pockets in their economies, and I am quite sure that their economies are well able to do so.
I have often discussed this subject with my many friends in both countries, and in general it is my impression that their imagination has been caught by the grandness of the design of Britain joining

323
Europe. They recognise the value to them of increased British prosperity as a result. There has been ready acceptance throughout of this point. Certain initial excitement was expressed recently in Australia, but I do not judge that that has been seriously widely shared. I certainly see no reason why these minor problems should affect relations as a whole with those two great and friendly countries.
Approaching the political prospects, looking into the future, is like peering into a glass darkly. Whatever may have been said in this debate about federation or the Community not being a federation, I think it is clear that we are committing ourselves to an association which is bound in course of time to have ever closer political links, and to some extent we shall be shedding some further bits of sovereignty, if I may put it that way. But, my Lords, we live in an interdependent world. We shall be influenced by the Community, whether we join it or not, and the notion of a splendid isolation for Britain is no longer tenable. Moreover, we live in a rapidly changing world. Other things will not stay the same, even if we should like to do so—other things, including our relations with other countries.
This brings me to the Commonwealth point again. I would not personally have subscribed to our entry if I had felt that British membership of the European Community was in any way incompatible with British membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, but I emphatically do not. Indeed, I think the wealth of our Commonwealth experience is one of the very considerable assets that we shall take with us on joining the Community. No doubt in the decades ahead our membership is bound to affect in some degree the nature of our association with other Commonwealth countries, but that association has been evolving and no doubt will constantly evolve. It, too, will change and adapt in the decades ahead. What will be important will be to show imagination and warmth in strengthening our ties of friendship with other Commonwealth countries, in developing the close links at professional and other levels and in extending the area of communication on the lines sketched out in what I thought was a remarkably thoughtful and sen-
324
sitive speech by the noble Lord, Lord Burgh, yesterday, which was touched on later by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. I am sure that this is the positive line we should take concerning the Commonwealth.
My Lords, for me the decisive moment in these discussions was when agreement was reached on New Zealand and on the sugar islands, because, to me, that seemed to prove conclusively that the Six, as they now are, positively wanted us in; that they were ready to understand our difficulties and were prepared to go far to meet them. I took this as a guarantee for the future, that the Community would show understanding and would want to be helpful over membership, and that from now on we should think not of "them" but of "us", because we shall be part of them. I believe that our membership of the Community will release a new stimulus to our lagging industry, as many distinguished persons in industry have been saying, and provide a new experience in partnership which need not cut out our old friends and which would give us our best chance to play our role in Europe, alike in association with the Commonwealth and alliance with the United States, and especially help us over the problems of East-West and North-South relationships, which have been touched on in greater depth by other speakers. For all this, the financial contribution seems to me to be a very small price to pay.
I have listened to a good deal of this debate. Much of it has been fascinating and in our history it has ranged from Zeus to Charlemagne. I should like to put some historical considerations in another form and ask: suppose we had been there in A.D. 43 and were asked by a Gallup poll whether we were in favour of the Roman invasion, or, in 1066, whether we were in favour of the Norman Conquest in advance, or, in 1688, in favour of the arrival of a Dutch King. Yet these three events in turn brought us a great deal of our culture, State development and political democracy. We also have received our language and religion from the Continent. Scotland has been quoted, and that again seems to me a happy augury. For two and a half centuries the Scots have lost nothing in opportunity and nothing of their own special national genius. So

325
may it be with Europe. May we both share its greatness and preserve our traditions.
There is one final thought I should like to put to your Lordships. I hope that when—and I say "when" because I think it is much more likely than "if", now—we enter Europe, we should do so with enthusiasm and as a result of the national will as a whole, without any sense of sordid commercial bargaining and without Party rancour. The other day I noticed a comment which Mr. George Bell reproduced in The Times under the heading of the agonies through which Britain was going. I think this is the wrong atmosphere. I do not see that there is any agony, that there should be any agony and that there need be any agony. I like to think that we are accepting a challenge. I am not at all happy about some of the other analogies that are being drawn—for example, of a drowning man clutching at a straw. For goodness sake!, if we are going to do it, let us do it because we believe it is right and because it will lead on to greatness. We are not doing it as a last desperate measure. I hope that we shall accept the challenge in comradeship with our new partners, with confidence and with cheerfulness.
9.25 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I should like to declare that my business interests are the importation and distribution of food from Commonwealth countries. Naturally, I started my thinking from the anti-Common Market standpoint. During the past seven years I have visited, and led trade missions to, most of the Commonwealth and South Africa. I have seen the United Kingdom share in all these markets steadily declining, and the growing tendency of protection for local industries by tariffs and duties. This firsthand knowledge has made me think again. In the past, we had an Empire, followed by the formation of the Commonwealth. This worked satisfactorily under the umbrella of preferences. The United Kingdom imported raw materials and agricultural produce, and in return exported manufactured goods. But now most of the Commonwealth countries wish to manufacture their own goods, and we have been forced to find other
326
markets. For instance, 20 years ago we sent to these countries nearly 40 per cent. of our total exports; now under 20 per cent. is shipped to the old Commonwealth. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the figure for the Commonwealth trade to-day is under 20 per cent., and not, as he stated, 30 per cent.
LORD BESWICK: If the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, I should like to correct him. The figure for the Commonwealth preference area, to which I was referring, and which is the relevant area in this argument, is 30·8 per cent. this year as against 30·4 per cent. last year.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Knowing that the noble Lord would probably take me up on this point, I telephoned the Commonwealth Secretariat just before I came into the Chamber this afternoon, and I have had my figure confirmed, that the total exports to the Commonwealth are under 20 per cent. to-day.
LORD BESWICK: This is one of the tricks of the pro-Marketeers. They tend to compare Commonwealth trade to-day with Commonwealth trade years ago, when it included South Africa, Burma and Ireland. If you take the same area to-day—the Commonwealth preference area, which I was quoting—it is just over 30 per cent., and it has remained constant.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Time is getting on, my Lords, and it would not be right for me to pursue this further; but maybe we can talk about it at some other time. In order to survive as a great trading nation, we cannot sit idly by: we must find alternative markets for our exports, and to-day our biggest single outlet is the E.E.C. But each year the tariffs into Europe are being steadily increased, and we certainly cannot contemplate a further shrinking of our Commonwealth trade and, at the same time, being squeezed out of the European market.
The terms that we have secured for the sugar producing countries in the Caribbean—an area where I have many responsibilities—and for the dairy industry of New Zealand are both fair and realistic, and are considered so by the countries concerned. I have some 20

327
near relatives in New Zealand, and am deeply involved in its meat, wool and dairy produce. I assure your Lordships that I would not be party to any arrangement that was unrealistic for that fair land. To go further, I believe that New Zealand may in the long run even be better off once we have joined the E.E.C.
Great Britain can only hold her position in the world, and continue to prosper and fulfil her obligations overseas, provided she can trade successfully. After a careful study the commercial world, led by the London Chamber of Commerce and the C.B.I., have come firmly to the conclusion that our association with the E.E.C. is not only the only solution, but a great opportunity for us to move forward.
My Lords, it is difficult to make a contribution to this debate, but little has been said about food prices and the effect on the housewives' budget. The approximate rise in prices over the past 12 months has been more than 10 per cent.—and we are no; in the Common Market. This has been caused by increases in world market prices and by the wages explosion which burst into being at the close of the last Government's term of office. The most popular food commodity under scrutiny to-day is butter. The price of New Zealand bulk butter has risen from £300 per ton last December to £460 per ton to-day. This is nothing to do with the Conservative Government, and the New Zealand dairy producer must not be blamed. Over these months there has been a world shortage of butter. I tried to warn the House of the position in my Question on this subject on November 12 of last year. Unfortunately my concern was riot taken very seriously. It is said that if we join the E.E.C. butter will cost more. This is misleading. We have agreed with New Zealand, our main supplier, on a basis for prices and quantities over the next five years. The overall cost of our butter will depend on supply and demand, and this will be the case whether we join the E.E.C. or not.
I would now like to turn to bread. As with most foods, it is difficult to compare United Kingdom retail prices with those ruling on the Continent, as generally speaking the quality of our manufactured bread is not as high as most Continental breads, but to give your
328
Lordships some ideas on bread prices I quote:
U.K. white manufactured bread 7 new pence per pound; Germany, white, 12½ new pence per pound, brown, 10¾ new pence per pound; France, Paris 7½ new pence, in the country 7 new pence; both Holland and Italy 6½ new pence.
To sum up, the United Kingdom price is approximately the same as that on the Continent. Milk is not now subject to the Government's support price scheme and our entry should not adversely affect the retail price. In the Netherlands, a large producer, the price is 68 cents per litre, equal to 4½ new pence per pint, as against the United Kingdom price of 5 new pence.
LORD BESWICK: As the noble Lord is such an expert and has given the comparative price of milk and bread in the Continental countries, would he be good enough to give the price of butter in France and Germany?
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: Yes, my Lords, the price of butter is around 8s. per pound in Paris to-day, and I am sorry to predict that within the next 12 months the price of butter in this country will I think he something similar. As the noble Lord knows, we have got very advantageous terms for the supply of our butter from New Zealand but these prices, as I have already explained, have risen by 50 per cent. from last December.
LORD BESWICK: Would the noble Lord make it quite clear that we are now going to take only 70 per cent. instead of the 100 per cent. of what is offering from New Zealand; and although the price has gone up this year, which is an exceptional year, it still remains true that £460 per ton for New Zealand butter compares with over £700 for German butter?
LORD MACPHERSON or DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, it is 71 per cent., if I remember correctly. The tonnage works out at something like 128,000 tons against this year's importation of 156,000 tons.
Returning now, if I may, to milk, this is very much bound up with the future of the Milk Marketing Board—which has not so far been resolved—when we join the Community. On entry into Europe egg prices in this country should drop,

329
as we shall have the benefit of supplies from the Continent in times of shortage without the encumbrance of to-day's levies.
The position with regard to meat is not easy to summarise, but I will set it out as follows. Lamb: there is no Common Market sheep meat policy at present, but it is more or less accepted that there will be a tariff of 20 per cent. at the end of the transitional period. At this time it will mean an increase of 10 per cent. as the present levy system (which will go) accounts for the other 10 per cent. It does not necessarily follow that the prices will be increased at this stage by the 10 per cent., or one new penny. For instance, the levy of one old penny, with stage increases which commenced on July 1 this year has been absorbed, and to-day the Market prices are below those at June 30. The price is governed by the demand.
With pork we are virtually self-sufficient because of the steady increase in our production. I do not foresee any substantial increase in prices after we join the Community. Last week loins of pork were definitely cheaper in London than in Paris. Home production of beef is steadily increasing. Because of different cuts it is difficult to give comparisons, but boneless sirloin in Paris retailed last week at around 88p per pound, against a current average price for English sirloin of about 82½p per pound. It must be borne in mind that there are great variants between shops, and to obtain these prices I have averaged them from 10 butchers' shops in London and the same number in Paris, and converted beef on bone to boneless.
In bacon, there will be no change with our main suppliers, Denmark and Ireland, who should continue to ship as at present. Holland will no longer have to pay the current 10 per cent. duty, and will undoubtedly recommence supplying Wiltshire sides. On the other hand, no one knows the attitude of Poland, a large supplier, who will most probably have to pay an increased duty. However, as I understand the position, no duty rate has been fixed for non-E.E.C. suppliers. On balance, my view is that there should not be a very great swing one way or the other in bacon prices. I believe it is common knowledge that fruit and vegetables are cheaper in the E.E.C., and
330
will be so for the United Kingdom housewife after we join.
The retail prices shown in the 1970 Command Paper 4289, Table 7, are already out of date, with a considerable narrowing of the differences. As previously stated, it is difficult to compare United Kingdom food prices with those in Europe, as our eating habits are different. For instance, we are the only outlet for bacon. We use different meat cuts, and our qualities are, in some cases, not the same. But with butter, bread, milk, eggs, meat, bacon, fruit and vegetables—which is a fair selection of the British diet—most will not be materially affected by our joining the Market based on today's price levels and trends.
I therefore urge you, my Lords, not to be misled by wild statements about food prices. This is a problem that we are having to face to-day, regardless of our entry. I have tried to tackle some of the arguments against joining the E.E.C., and sincerely hope that every one of your Lordships will think most carefully about this issue and not allow sentiment, or political motives, to sway your judgment.
9.42 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, as someone who has spent all his business life in retailing may I, too, be allowed to say a few words about the standard of living, food prices, and our proposed entry into the European Economic Community? I have always attached the greatest importance to keeping the cost of our food as low as possible, and to taking full advantage of world market prices. That is why I have always supported our system of deficiency payments, and why I consider the E.E.C.'s agricultural policy, which insulates the domestic market and raises the cost of the food to the consumer, as one of the Common Market's least attractive features. However, it is important to look at this matter in perspective.
It is of no great benefit to the consumer to have low food prices if, at the same time, wages and earnings are also low. Unfortunately, it is a fact that over the past ten years or so our average real earnings have grown relatively slowly, with the result that they are now considerably below those in five of the six E.E.C. countries. I am not suggesting that entry into the Common Market

331
would automatically lead to a much faster growth in earnings than in the past. However, in common with the majority of industry, I believe that a rapidly growing and highly competitive domestic market of over 250 million people will provide us with greater opportunities for growth than one of 55 million people. The experience of the E.E.C. countries shows that they have derived considerable benefits in the field of exports, investment efficiency, et cetera, from the formation of the Common Market, and since there is no conclusive evidence to the contrary I do not accept that the so-called dynamic effects of our entry can be discounted.
So far as the consumer is concerned, an acceleration in the rate of our economic growth could lead to a faster increase in the standard of living than in the past, in spite of the inevitable rise in food prices. As in so many areas of economics, the exact figures are difficult, if not impossible, to calculate. However, even if the Government's estimate of a 2½ per cent. annual rise in food prices turns out to be over-optimistic, the overall effect on the cost of living is unlikely to be above 1 per cent. a year, especially in view of the fact that as industrial tariffs are reduced the price of many imported products should see a decline. Even if one could not expect a faster rate of increase in earnings, a rise of less than 1 per cent. in the cost of living is relatively insignificant when set against the inflation we have experienced in the last five years.
Therefore, in my opinion it would not be a strong enough reason to reject entry. But—and this is in my view the important point—there are good reasons for expecting a faster growth in earnings, and even a relative small improvement in this field would be sufficient more than to offset the adverse price effects of our entry. This is why I find it hard to understand the argument that joining the E.E.C. would be tantamount to an attack on our living standards. As a Socialist, I care about the living standards of our people, as I hope all do in this House; and I believe that membership of the Common Market will be beneficial in the long term. But when talking about food prices, it is also important to consider future trends in the world markets. I accept that as a development of high-yield strains, or the Green Revolution,
332
as it has come to be called, grain supplies are likely to become more plentiful and prices are likely to weaken. This could widen the gap between world and E.E.C. grain prices, unless of course the enlarged Community, in which we will have a considerable influence, decides to revise its prices downwards.
However, some well-known anti-Marketeers seem to forget that one cannot generalise about food prices, and what is true of grain is not necessarily true of other basic commodities. Certainly so far as dairy products and meat are concerned, the indications are that the era of low prices is over. There are several reasons for this. In New Zealand and Denmark dairy farmers are switching to beef; and as we all know, in the Common Market the butter surplus has virtually melted away. In view of this, prices are expected to remain firm, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, has already indicated, and the gap between E.E.C. prices and world prices is likely to narrow even further.
This is also true of meat. A rise in living standards has pushed up meat consumption, as a result of which there is now a world shortage of meat. Again, there are no grounds for expecting that the position will change significantly in the foreseeable future, and it may not be very long before home meat prices reach Common Market levels. Therefore, the argument that we shall probably have to pay more for many of our basic foods, whether we enter Europe or not, is a strong one. It is not just good enough to dismiss it as the invention of the so-called "Euro-fanatics", simply on the basis of what is happening to grain. So on balance I do not think there is very much in the anti-Marketeers' arguments about prices and living standards.
What about the other major considerations, such as the overall balance of payments and the position of New Zealand and the sugar producing countries? I accept the assertion contained in the White Paper that the net effect on our payments balance cannot be calculated with any degree of accuracy, and I believe that any attempt to do so might prove fairly misleading. I also believe that the terms negotiated for New Zealand and the sugar producers are fair, and even the most ardent anti-Marketeers

333
find it difficult to argue otherwise, since they have been accepted as such by the Government of New Zealand and the great majority of the sugar producing countries.
But some people claim that, even if the terms are acceptable, we cannot go in as long as our economy is as weak as it is to-day. One answer to that objection that has been frequently mentioned during the course of our debate is that if the present opportunity of joining is not taken up it will probably not recur again for a very long time. Secondly, in my view it is a mistake to attach too great an importance to our current economic situation, since the full effect of our membership will not be felt before the end of the transitional period in 1977.
So far I have concentrated on some of the economic aspects of the great debate, and in conclusion I should like to say a few words about the political implications. I believe that the White Paper is very convincing on this score, and I accept that, although economic considerations are of the greatest importance, the decision to enter or to stay outside the Community must, in the final analysis, be taken on political grounds. The Six have shown that in spite of their inevitable differences it is possible for European countries to work together in constructive co-operation, something that was unthinkable in 1939. The Six believe that Britain has an important role to play in this historic development, and by saying, "No", we should not only damage the unity and prospects of Western Europe, but would subject ourselves to a continuing loss of influence and decline in our relative prosperity.
9.55 p.m.
LORD BOURNE: My Lords, if ever a decision ought to be taken on bipartisan grounds, I think this is it. I do not propose to deal with the terms themselves, because they have been covered by experts who have described them in great detail. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, himself, having described the terms in some detail, then went on to say that the political considerations in the end ought to be overriding, and it is those with which I want to deal. After all, the terms are really the price we pay and as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, said, they do not matter terribly. Relatively they do not matter. In five or six years they
334
will be over and we shall be full members of the Treaty of Rome.
I wanted to raise three points, quite quickly, about first of all the political side, then sovereignty, and lastly defence. On the political side, I remember so well Sir Cecil Weir, who was Economic Commissioner in Germany to the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, saying that we ought to have been in the Treaty of Rome right from the start and this discussion should not be taking place. Although I was not able to be here yesterday, I thought the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Defence put it very well when he said:
"We in Britain, I believe, can add political stability to the partnership of our European friends",
and he went on to say that he thought that we in this country could add an outward looking approach. I find it very difficult to believe that members of the Council or members of the Commission, who meet regularly and frequently in Brussels, coupled with the many international civil servants who work with them, can argue about tariffs and the price of this or that and then go outside and fight each other. I cannot help feeling that the European Economic Community is a marvellous safeguard to ensure that there is no more war in Western Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, in his maiden speech said much the same thing, and he was quoting from his historical experience when he said that Britain ought to enhance the stabilising influences in Europe. That is exactly the point I am making. It is so much more important, to my mind, than the price of butter or meat.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who was intimately connected with these negotiations, said that the real advantage was political, and that the alternative, if we do not join, will be a continuation of fragmented European States clinging to their illusions of grandeur. I do not personally think we ought to be included in those. So I feel the political arguments are very strong. I would say a word about sovereignty. As the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, said yesterday, this never was a runner. Every time we sign a treaty we sign away a piece of our sovereignty in exchange for a position of advantage with our allies. We have done that in the United Nations and in

335
NATO and in the Treaty of Vienna. We have done it many times. We always give up a piece of our sovereignty. I was not, unfortunately, able to hear the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack explain this in legal detail, but that is the way I look at it. I look forward to the day when Europe becomes more a political whole. It is a long way off. I am afraid it is a very long business to get there, but I hope that we eventually achieve it.
Lastly, defence. Although the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said yesterday that there would be no immediate impact on defence—and I am sure he is right when he says "immediate"—in the long term the Six, and we perhaps hope that they will become Ten, if successful will provide a stronger base for their security. In other words, if they prosper they will be able to afford more defence. Seeing that the United States is likely to pull out conventional forces from Europe before very long, Europe must inevitably provide more forces, and this will cost more. I cannot help feeling that the European Economic Community should be better able to afford it, if it is successful. We now live in a world of big units, whether we like it or not. As the noble Lord Lord Gladwyn, said, isolation in the modern age makes absolutely no sense. I am sure he is right. For these reasons, I welcome our application for entry to the E.E.C., and I sincerely hope that we do not miss this historic opportunity.
10.2 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I am intervening very briefly in this debate, because in one of the many pamphlets and broadsheets and other pieces of paper which have been distributed round the country in the last two or three weeks on the subject of the E.E.C. a speech of one of my predecessors—I have to call him that because he was not an ancestor, but it is too complicated for me to explain to your Lordships now—was mentioned. This particular pamphlet was issued by the Conservative Party, so perhaps noble Lords on the other side of the House do not know what was said in it. However, I did feel that I could not let it pass even after having read the speech of my noble friend Lord Polwarth, who spoke yesterday roughly on the lines on which I am going to speak to-day.
336
Some 264 years ago this predecessor of mine was one of the principal opponents in the Scottish Parliament of the Union with England. After the Union in 1707 he did a year's "stretch" in the Tower for his pains. Times change, and I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, will not do a similar "stretch" in the Bastille, or wherever it is the French put the gentlemen who do not agree with the E.E.C. terms being accepted. The point I wish to make in relation to the Union of Scotland and England is that that treaty, unlike the Treaty of Rome, did involve a total abdication of sovereignty for the smaller country. Even the provisions of the treaty itself could be negatived by the Parliament of Great Britain and some subsequently were. This act by Scotland 264 years ago was a far greater act of faith than anything that Great Britain is proposing to do to-day.
I feel that my predecessor was, in many ways, justified in his opposition to this Union; but I think that if, by some magic, he were brought to life again to-day, from what I have read of him he was a big enough man to be able to admit that he had been wrong. I think he would have done that, because I do not myself doubt that the results of the Treaty of Union have been beneficial. I also do not doubt that, had our predecessors failed to unite this Island, our history over the last 264 years would have been very grim indeed. As a Scotsman, I feel I can say in this Parliament that if Great Britain does not take up a small part of the challenge that Scotland took up 260 years ago, I shall be very disappointed.
In 1707, this Island was too small to hold two Kingdoms and, to pursue this parallel, it is quite clear that in 1971 this Island is too small to go on alone. Many noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, have said that the sovereignty argument is really a non-issue, and so I believe it to be. For even in the case of the incorporating Union between Scotland and England, I do not think it is in any doubt that, if the majority of the people in either country decided that they wished to end the arrangement, which would be a most unfortunate decision, then in this

337
democratic age no obstacle would be put in their way.
I trust that your Lordships will bear with me for another two minutes if I follow the parallel of the Union of 1707 and the present Market treaties a little further. The parallel is not exact, but then no historical parallels are. I would further suggest, going back to 1707, that this Union, this marriage as one might call it, between the two nations was by no means a love match. Centuries of war had divided the two peoples. It is difficult to-day to realise the bitter ancestral hatred which the two nations then had for each other. The population of Scotland, at any rate, was by an enormous majority opposed to the Union which they saw as a surrender to the"old enemy ", which is what they called England. How much the position has changed in 260 years! A similar antipathy to the Scots existed in England. It was a marriage of convenience if ever there was one.
In the matter of the E.E.C., I see no reason why there should be any question of love entering into the arrangement. We do not have to love the Germans or the French to realise that it might be better if we worked together, rather than that we should go on as we did in the past and start another orgy of mutual slaughter in a few years' time. I feel that some of the people—I do not say noble Lords—who have opposed this move must be thinking along those lines, and would really like another orgy of mutual slaughter in a few years' time to give them a bit of excitement. But I think we can possibly get our excitement in some other way.
10.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, having listened to the speeches of many noble Lords during the two days of this most important debate, I shall endeavour to give my candid and personal views on the White Paper and will be as brief as possible. There is no more information in it than there was in the last White Paper of 1970. My attention was drawn to a sentence which stated that the effect on our trade cannot be quantified. Therefore the economic advantages, if there are any, cannot be shown in a balance sheet or in a profit and loss
338
account. I therefore wonder whether this is a shot in the dark. The White Paper states that the possible benefit could be substantial, but does not come forth with any credible evidence to prove it. It also states that the Six have done better than we have, and that by joining them we shall therefore do better. With this I cannot agree. Some of the main reasons why they have done better than we have will not apply in our case if we join.
We shall not have the driving force of post-war reconstruction as they had, nor shall we have the great surplus of agricultural labour to push into industry which so increased their growth rate. We have no spare farm workers. Another reason why they have done better is that the Six had high tariffs between themselves when they started, and by reducing those tariffs to nil they have stimulated trade and growth between themselves. But the tariffs between Britain and the Common Market are low, so their abolition will not have the same stimulating effect. Therefore, if we do not get the hoped for growth rate we shall be in very serious trouble, with large payments to be made every year for the privilege of belonging to the Common Market, which payments will, I suppose, go mainly to subsidising inefficient peasant farmers in the Common Market. We shall be condemned to a rise of 16 per cent. or more in food prices in five or six years, and that is on top of the ordinary rises. What about the value-added tax if we move over to the Common Market? As I see it, this tax will probably be placed on food because we shall have to harmonise in this respect with the Common Market countries. The result will be an additional burden on the family budget, and more so on the poorer sections of the community. The Government promise to make this up by increasing benefits, but I have yet to see any Government of any Party which ever gives enough. This increase in food prices is certain to have a dynamic effect on prices and wages, and ultimately, of course, on the price at which we sell our exports.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Earl except on one point. He said that a value-added tax would probably be levied on food. I think I am right in saying that this is specifically excluded.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: I thank the noble Earl. As I was saying, this increase in food prices is certain to have a dynamic effect on prices and wages, and ultimately, of course, on the price at which we sell our exports. There is only one conclusion to come to, in my view and in that of many others in this country, as a result of our negotiations and of the White Paper, and that is that the real issue is not an economic one but is political. Noble Lords who are pro-Marketeers (and that certainly does not include myself, as your Lordships will have gathered, at any rate, from my speech) wish to see a united Europe with one voice to rival America and Russia as an economic Power, which it can only do if, like them, it has one Government—and I accept this as a long-term aim of the Europeans. There would be one European Government with European Ministers, and a democratically elected European Parliament to control the Government, presided over by a European President who will be assisted by a European civil service—and this already exists. That, my Lords, is the logic of it all.
What would be the outcome of all this? Britain would then be a State or a province in a federal country called Europe. Power over a great range of affairs would ultimately be shifted from Westminster to Europe—foreign affairs, monetary and economic matters, taxation, agriculture, defence, social services and so on. All the things I have mentioned are so vital for the future of our country that if we sign the Treaty of Rome and the process of integration starts there will be no looking back. So my personal view is that the vital question of where we are going politically should be settled before we join. My
340
Lords, we are the most stable nation in Western Europe. Should we be jubilant and happy to merge our sovereignty with the countries of the Six? To this question I would say,"No ". Take Italy, for example. The second largest Party is the Communist Party, and now the Fascist Party is back in the running. If either of these Parties wins it will be a nightmare having to integrate with such doctrines.
The White Paper, referring to defence, says that Europe must look after itself more than it does to-day. When the noble Baroness winds up perhaps she will state whether this is a signal for the withdrawal of Americans from Europe, which in my view would lead to a highly dangerous military situation and consequently an even greater expenditure by Britain on its Armed Forces. Would this mean conscription such as the Common Market countries have? I cannot agree with the safeguards given to Australia and New Zealand in the White Paper. This has been dealt with by other expert noble Lords so I will not enlarge on it except to say that this is a case of "Take it or leave it". The plain answer is that they will leave us and will trade elsewhere. Men of the Anzacs did not give their lives by the hundred thousand for the price of bread, the amount of the pay packet, the ratios of sugar or butter, fishing limits, the role of sterling or any of the matters that have been the subject of these negotiations. Finally, I endorse and support those who advocate a referendum—which has been brushed aside by the Government. This seems to me to show a complete lack of confidence in the people of this country, who must not be beguiled and caused to betray their past and to obliterate their future.
10.16 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, nobody can have the good fortune to follow a "dinkum Aussie" such as is the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, without being immediately stimulated to some degree by the flair of Anzac zest which he spreads about him. I find it a lonely matter to be more in tune with the minority in this House than with what is obviously the overwhelming feeling; but amid all the power of words which have surged about this Chamber and after a public relations exercise well code-named, in some quarters, "Operation over-kill", I cannot help recalling Ibsen's words, "Never put on your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom".
The case may be, and has been, well stated to be one of accession to the European consort. It can be stated as an example of an opportunity for Britain to exercise her traditional expertise in the balance of power. It may also be presented as a case of our country becoming so obsessed with Continental power blocs and balances as to incline us to turn our backs on the maritime outlook and become landlubbers rather than seafarers. It can be presented as one of inviting Britain to commit her destiny to a new sort of institutional imperialism bereft of Parliamentary control and governed by a Council which equates Britain with three nation-states of which two have a State and Parliamentary experience one-tenth of our own. The accountability of power is surely one of the most important questions posed by the technological society.
I accept that, diplomatically and politically, it would be difficult now to withdraw without loss of credibility; although with great respect to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor I am bound to say that I do not follow the argument as unfolded by him this afternoon that assent to the negotiations must in honour mean assent to their results.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I never said that. I said that nobody who had assented to the negotiations could say with the smallest hope of credibility now that he was opposed in principle to accession. I also said that the results of the negotiations were accept-
342
able. But I did not say that one followed from the other. I only said that both propositions were true.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble and learned friend for repeating what he said in language which I have now got more clearly than at the time when he spoke. I apologise for misrepresenting him and I am much obliged to him for instructing us.
I accept that there is a Common Market case in terms of economics. The very fact that E.E.C. intra-trade has multiplied not by four but by six over ten years or so speaks for itself, and again that the E.E.C. investment growth rate from 1958 to 1969 was several percentage points higher than our own. But in the circumstances I beg leave to take an interrogative stance, because I wonder whether noble Lords are fully aware that the Common Market itself only just balances its overseas trade and payments and only just has a favourable balance. I am quoting figures widely known, whether from Board of Trade sources or the O.E.C.D.
It is perhaps not widely known to noble Lords that the E.E.C. external trade grew only two and a half times during the period in question, while ours with them grew twice. The Common Market share of world manufactures shrank—and I am quoting Board of Trade figures—and the E.E.C. investment growth rate has actually been slowing down. I quote a Parliamentary Reply printed in Hansard of another place on June 29, Written Answers, col. 74. This slowing down cannot be attributed just to relative satiety in the E.E.C. after several years of sensational advance, because over the decade, the graph is pretty similar to that for the United Kingdom. It may not be generally known that it is countries outside the E.E.C.,"other O.E.C.D. Europe ", as it is sometimes designated, whose investment growth rate is actually accelerating at the present time, while the E.E.C. investment growth rate is slowing down as I have just said. My Lords, these are figures and percentages which have some bearing on the extensive argument that has been used.
Then we have the argument about the enormous new home market that is to be

343
at our disposal, this being the consequence of a reduction of tariffs. I take leave to quote the Financial Times of July 23:
"…the rise in the prices of British exports during the past 12 months alone has, on average, increased their cost to E.E.C. buyers in greater degree than the complete elimination by one stroke of present tariffs would reduce it."
The Financial Times goes on:
"…the net liberalisation of British trade achieved by moving into the E.E.C. would be very small beer indeed by comparison with that which has resulted in the past ten to twenty years from the extensive dismantling of tariffs, quota restrictions, exchange controls and other non-tariff barriers that has been taking place on a world-wide scale."
I draw attention to that quotation because it surely throws into slightly different relief the commonly accepted argument that we now have the choice for or against a vast new home market.
This leads me to the inhibitions which are imposed by inflation and the narrowness and recent uncertainty of our balance of payments position. Since our inflation rate is already above the E.E.C. average, exchange rate rigidity could have a dampening effect on the demand for British goods, and so we could find ourselves paying our entry costs by further deflation and even unemployment. In turn this could mean emigration, of both brawn and brain, of our people attracted to West Germany and the Netherlands joining the flow of unemployed Greeks, Yugoslavs, Spaniards and Italians like geese flying South. We might have to make a choice either to resort to some exchange adjustment or we could face the sort of consequences which followed our return to the gold standard in 1925.
I took care before this debate began to write to my noble friend the Leader of the House to give him a list of some questions I wanted to ask on the Floor of the House in the hope that one could have a public answer to them. The first is to ask whether we are bound by any assurance to any of the Six that the sterling exchange rate will not be allowed to move from its present parity save within very narrow limits. Are we bound by any specific assurance on that to any of the Six?
344
I come to the question, following the balance of payments, of our Budget subscription. The White Paper, which was described as "obscure" by a former Chairman of the Tory Party speaking in another place, assumes that our net contribution by 1977 will not exceed £200 million a year provided the budget does not rise meantime more than £50 million per annum. So I come to my second question, of which I have given advance notice. What measures of control exist lb safeguard us against the Council of Ministers approving any undue rise in the E.E.C. budget? Is this a point worthy of our exercise of the veto?
Now we come to the statement in paragraph 29 of the White Paper that there is to be no erosion in essential sovereignty. Here I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I misquote him in the three quotations I took down during this afternoon. First of all: "the instruments of power rest in the hands of the members"; secondly: "power is the reality of sovereignty"; thirdly: "coercive powers are in the member States". I will immediately give way if the noble and learned Lord wishes, but in the light of those statements, may I put forward this question, of which I have also given advance notice. Would the British Parliament continue to enjoy unrestricted power to refuse to vote Supply, notably for onward transmission as Britain's contribution to the E.E.C. budget? It will be common knowledge that Parliament's right to withhold Supply has proved to be the key to Parliament's sovereign independence. Should we be forced to pay so many millions of pounds sterling per annum, without the possibility of question and without the possibility of refusing to vote it, what begins as a subscription would end up as a tribute.
This leads me to another question, of which I have likewise given advance notice. The monetary mechanism of the world certainly needs more cylinders. I have always thought that the crux of Britain's post-Commonwealth opportunity and role, and the best hope of bridging the gap between the Northern and Southern hemispheres, rests in the adaptation of the Sterling Area. I found a passage from that expert on the sterling area, Mr. Paul Einzig, of some interest

345
in this regard. He wrote in February, 1967:
"Foreseeing the time when the U.S.A. can no longer bolster sterling, Britain is anxious to ensure its future support from Europe".
He goes on to say:
"Overseas deposits in sterling—even if they do cause risk of short-term drain and strain—give support to the £, and the demand for sterling which inflow has generated has helped Britain considerably in expanding credit and exporting capital."
It would be one thing to aim at a kind of neo-sterling E.E.C. area, in which the resources of all were pooled to back a reserve currency emanating from a power grouping that does perhaps half of the world's trade, operated by mutual exchange equalisation support of one another's currencies, somewhat in the fashion in which the dollar and franc and sterling supported one another mutually in the days before the last war. Such an area could make sense as a new source of liquidity. It could provide a cushion for developing countries against the huge variations in commodity prices of the past 10 years, like the 700 per cent. in sugar, 360 per cent. in cocoa, 270 per cent. in copper, 20 per cent. in lead and in rubber.
So I come to my next question, of which again I have given advance notice. What is our policy towards a substitute for the sterling area? What kind of substitute do we envisage? The noble and learned Lord's powerful presentation this afternoon, as I understood it, denied any real prospect of federation and seemed to put the case as if it were no more than a customs union plus decorative ornaments. If that indeed is the package we are offered, I would say "Well and good", and accept it almost wholeheartedly. But the White Paper, in paragraph 127, says that we are ready to play our full part in
"progress toward economic and monetary union."
So I come to the next question, of which I have also given notice: Do we in our approach to the possibility of a monetary union of Europe envisage the creation of a common central bank of issue, and central supranational decisions regarding our money supply, the levels of employment, deflation and reflation, prices and
346
incomes, national Budget and taxation? For these surely are the very stuff of Parliamentary life in a sovereign country. My Lords, to go for that kind of measure, if that is what is intended, could land our country in grave complications unless we enter such arrangements with countries that are ad idem with us on defence and hence on foreign policy.
So my sixth question, of which I have also given advance notice, is this: should we be prepared to go into a monetary union in advance of full agreement on defence and foreign policy? I ask that when we are considering this entry into Europe, on the back, as it were, of Herr Willy Brandt's ost-politik, which raises many eyebrows, and on the back of France's de facto withdrawal from co-operation with NATO.
My Lords, I admit that the Europe of E.E.C. wants us in. I admit that Eastern Europe, under the counter, wants us in. I admit that United States policy has been to push us in. I believe that we may be able to help the Commonwealth and the sterling area by going in. I believe that the geography of Continental growth would either push or suck us in. But I say: never let it be found that the language of Parliament has ceased to be the idiom of the public. And this is a step into the heart of a continent which can only be made viable if backed by the wholehearted resolution of the people at large.
This is not an end in itself but a beginning. Unless in approaching it we develop and press right policies about exchange parities, about what I should choose to call a neo-sterling area, to say nothing of developing our own port and transport infrastructure at home and bringing positive ideas for the development of E.E.C. policies on transport, fuel and energy and regional policy and allowing differential taxation; unless we do these things, I believe we could find ourselves puzzled and at a loss, once we are admitted to the new political liturgies of this temple of Continental power. No mere mechanism can do for our problems what we lack the will and vision to do for ourselves, to release and stir again the sap of the British oak. To re-quote the Financial Times of the same date, July

347
23, may I draw your Lordships' attention to this passage:
"If we are going to rely on entry into the E.E.C. to eliminate the problems that have resulted in our falling further and further behind in the economic advancement race, we are in for another unpleasant surprise."
My Lords, the E.E.C. is no padded cell.
10.34 p.m.
LORD MACLEOD OF FUINARY: My Lords, I confess that I cannot honestly follow so many of your Lordships in regretting my incursion into this debate. So remarkably few people have spoken against the Common Market—I think the figure is still about ten to one—that it behoves those of us who are robustly against it not to hesitate to speak. I would declare an interest—well, not exactly an interest, but I would say, possibly for your interest, that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which some people say is now the Parliament of Scotland, in May of this year had a remarkable debate about the Common Market, and out of 500 ministers and elders there was a majority of 73 who voted against our entry. I am bound to confess that since then the mood has somewhat changed in the country—or is it that the mood of the mass media which directs the thinking of the country has changed?—and there seem to be a remarkable number of noble Lords in this House who have changed also in this reiteration of the real reason why we may be going in: summarised, that how regrettable it all is, but Britain must enter or perish. My Lords, this is no basis on which a nation, if it has any greatness left, should decide the biggest issue presented to its people in the last 200 years.
There are still viable alternatives, but I am suggesting that if there were not viable alternatives, if we are still Great Britain, the decision simply to say" No "would be no more foolhardy than our great decision in 1939 to enter the last war sans Army, sans Allies, sans everything—and that was supposed to be a great hour. If I were to choose a text of what I am saying it might be chosen from the book of Sir Winston Churchill. He said, in another connection:
"Every time we must choose between Europe and the open sea we will choose the open sea".
348
My purpose is to tell you what I find ordinary people everywhere seem to be saying. What is the anti-Market position among ordinary people—it is my duty to move among them all the time—and what are its chances? Its big chance is in the growing capacity of the generality of folk to know what is happening. In 1947 in a pamphlet called Design for Europe, of which the then Peter Thorneycroft was the principal author, now the noble Lord who addressed us yesterday, there was written:
"No Government depending on a democratic vote could possibly agree in advance to the sacrifices which any adequate plan must involve. The people must be led slowly and unconsciously into the abandonment of their traditional economic defences".
Thanks to higher education, the majority of our people since 1947 are not now unconscious pawns. Despite the propaganda they are not yet impressed.
New Zealand has had comparably too much publicity. Perhaps because much time was given to it it became a show piece, but most are inclined to agree that we are seeing what the French Foreign Minister prophesied when he said:
"If Britain enters the Common Market with the Commonwealth the Common Market is finished; if Britain enters without the Commonwealth the Commonwealth is finished."
After all, and over all, we cannot expect our former Colonies to get more favoured treatment than, say, France's former Colonies, known in the Treaty as "Associated States". We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for what he said in this regard. There is plenty of evidence—if you want it, see the book The Pillage of the Third World—that the Association is simply a "neo-imperialist contract", the "have nots"continuing to supply the raw materials at cheap prices for industrialised processing by the "haves", for ever deepening the financial indebtedness of the Associated States and laying the foundations, it might be, for an ultimate race war.
Again, are the Market countries really being so successful? We were grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, with his great agricultural knowledge and his intricate figures, which seem to show that success was everywhere. They were rather intricate, and when talking of the ordinary people of our land they are more

349
likely to be affected by the kind of headings they see. I want to give some headings that appeared in The Times, the Financial Times and the Economist and in no other—that is papers of the Right—during the past few months. Here are the headlines that people read:
"E.E.C. declining rate of growth"; "German business" views; "State of the economy", with little confidence; "West Germany fears surge of bankruptcies"; "Italy enters period of stagnation"; "In France, rich get richer, poor get poorer"; "E.E.C. policy not helping farmers"; "Market's trade deteriorating"; "France wincing from inflation"; and "Chaos in Italy". These are headings that have appeared this year in such papers as I have mentioned.
I was glad when the noble Lord, Lord Annan, so honestly and charmingly reminded us that there are few economists who are as enthusiastic as many of the speeches we have heard here to-day. These are the headings which people read. Or, more fundamentally, it is worth perhaps looking up the December, 1970, report of the National Institue of Economic and Social Research, a very responsible body, on a much wider front. Reference to that shows that it is just not true that Britain's economy would grow more quickly if we went in. This report shows also that the Community's share in world trade is not a pace-setter, that the Community's share has been falling rather than going up. It shows that specialisation has not been increasing in the E.E.C. These are documents issued by a very responsible economic group.
Agriculturally, coming down to what the people talk about, what is to be made of the riots of the farmers in France and Belgium? Mr. Rippon refers to consistently high growth rates, but the growth rate includes the millions of tons of grain and sugar that are still bulging the stores to bursting point—and that includes the vast quantities of vegetables which have been ploughed back into the ground. These are part of the high growth rate. The Press reported last week, on July 23, that the Common Market Commission had announced quotas to stop the member countries being flooded with 200,000 tons of tomato products. These are the inefficient but politically powerful farmers on
350
whose behalf we are being asked to pay out hundreds of millions of pounds from British resources. The people are not impressed.
Nor are they impressed by corruption. A Frankfurt periodical claims that:—
"Only fifty per cent. of all grain transactions are concluded because of actual requirements."
The other fifty per cent. are fictitious paper transactions. For six months or more grain barges criss-cross European countries without discharging their cargoes, for no other purpose than to enable the exporters to collect export subsidies. The Customs authorities have discovered 140 loopholes in a maze of 3,000 Market regulations, which we are going to have to accept without debate. An increasing number of companies are employing "loophole spotters", who are euphemistically called "market researchers". They detect loopholes in the regulations from which the companies profit. It is not surprising, as a result, that the Common Market Agricultural Fund needed £250 million in the year 1966–67 but by June 1970 £1,500 million had already been drawn for that year. A Dutch weekly, Panorama, describes the situation in the Common Market as
"The greatest store shed and the most expensive centre in the world for the consumer."
It adds:
"this hunt for subsidies has changed the Common Market into a madhouse of world commerce."
We are not impressed. Nor can anyone be impressed by the enormous question mark over what it would all cost us, leaving out corruption, in justified dues. The quickest way is to confine this to a simple equation.
A British university lecturer has a friend who is a lecturer in the Sorbonne. It so happens that each has a similar-sized family, a similar-sized salary and a private income from private investments of similar size. The French lecturer asked his British friend "What proportion of your income goes in taxation?" And the Britisher replied, "Between a third and a half of my income goes in taxation. And what proportion of your income goes in taxation? "The Frenchman replied" About one-twelfth."Of course, we must remember that the Frenchman pays value added tax, but then we are

351
going to pay value added tax as well. Is our income tax going to be adjusted, and will it be adjusted in our favour to anything like a similar proportion? If it is, are the British Government going to be advised to say so loud and clear? It would be the best news of the year.
We have dealt with what is not impressing these people. Let us now telegraphically record why we are filled with gloom. If we do not go in, we are told that "gloom awaits the future of our land." But the question can surely be asked in reply, "If we do go in, does not a worse gloom await our land?"
Major gloom number one: the end of our democratic liberty. Say what they like, it will be the end of our sovereignty, as most understand sovereignty. Articles 100, 101, and 189 make clear that by a qualified majority vote the Council can dictate absolutely to the British Government in certain fields. Will anyone deny that the moment we are in there will be written into our laws some 2,000 directives that already govern the Six in economic policy, without our Parliament being able to discuss a single one of them? Is that not a brake on democratic freedom? Or, if anyone wants it further spelt out, the official bulletin of the E.E.C. in April of this year reported that the Common Market Court of Justice in Brussels—the final court—ruled to:
"Uphold the Rome treaty provision that negotiations with non-member countries involving Community rules should be conducted by the Commission and concluded by the Council of Ministers".
The Common Market Court of Justice decreed on March 31 this year that:
"Every time the Community adopted Common rules, in whatever form these might be, the member States were no longer entitled individually or collectively to contract obligations with non-member countries which affected these rules".
So much for the easy phrase: "We can sign the Treaty first and negotiate afterwards". After Britain has agreed to the Treaty we shall be powerless to negotiate on sugar imports, New Zealand produce, or the decisions of the Court of Justice. We can argue, but the bureaucrats will decide.
Gloom number two: the end of our freedom in decisions about peace and
352
war. Despite the Government's assertion that the Treaty of Rome is not concerned with defence, the White Paper of July carries these words in paragraph 7:
"The Government are convinced…that membership of the Communities will enhance the security of Western Europe".
Again, in paragraph 11 it says:
"The countries of Western Europe felt the need for closer co-operation among themselves to re-establish collective defence arrangements against threats from outside."
To be more specific, if I understand the Press correctly, at Sutton Coldfield on June 7 this year, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, Britain's Defence Minister, stated:
"Britain's Common Market military alliance with Europe would be just as successful as her role in NATO for 22 years…in a few years it will be taken just as much for granted."
I always assumed that NATO had to do with defence. Who is there who doubts that if we go in it will be taken just as much for granted that the present Prime Minister's Godkin Lecture at Harvard in 1967 has found fruition? The lecture was about the proposed establishment of a European group to exercise control over a "pooled Anglo-French nuclear strike force". If West Germany has access to this nuclear strike force it is not only the New Statesman that prophesies the danger of starting a new cold war and the end of the non-proliferation treaty. Willy Brandt has done wonders for the peace of Europe, but his majority is exceedingly small. If the previous German Coalition Government came to power, and Herr Strauss had his place in it, who will deny the danger of Dr. Adenauer being quoted again? Dr. Adenauer said:
"The creation of a Europe which is politically and economically strong is the only path leading to the recovery of Germany's eastern frontiers, which remains one of the essential goals of our activities."
Incidentally, all 'the others in the Six have conscription. How far in the light of this, my second "looming gloom", should we be masters in our own House?
Finally—and your Lordships will be glad to hear "finally"—gloom number three is financial. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway for dealing with the financial situation with a wisdom and ability that I cannot command. Increasingly the impression is

353
being given that the Common Market will be a viable unit in an economic and a monetary sense. It is only those who know most who know what nonsense this is. Economically and monetarily we are suffering a world sickness and not a European sickness. It was never summed up better than by Sir Winston Churchill:
"Who would have thought"—
he asked—
"that it would be easier to produce the most necessary commodities than it is to find consumers for them? Who would have thought that cheap and abundant supplies of all the basic commodities should find the science and civilisation of the world unable to utilise them?"
He asked:
"Have all our triumphs of research and organisation bequeathed us only a new punishment, the curse of plenty? To solve that one"—
Sir Winston Churchill went on—
"many attempts have been made from the extremes of Communism to the extremes of capitalism. All have failed."
There is our malaise, and adding Britain's problems to those of Europe will ultimately not lessen but increase the burden of mankind. Anyway, it is sheer nonsense to give to the Electorate the vague impression that we are even attempting a monetary bastion.
How is it that in Brussels to-day there are permanently 20,000 American businessmen? Because we are all being run by an inexplicable monetary monopoly of world international financiers and bankers. Again I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. Perhaps Napoleon got out of his bed on the wrong side when he said what I now quote:
"When a Government is dependent for money upon bankers, the bankers, and not the leaders of the Government, control the situation. Money has no motherland. Financiers are without patriotism. Their sole object is gain."
I agree with you that that is a little fierce. But will your Lordships agree with me that if Napoleon said that at the beginning of the 19th century, he might have been entitled to be"even more explicit"as of the present date? If anyone feels outraged by a quotation of that kind, let him have this final quotation by the Chairman of Barclays Bank D.C.O., who is Vice-Chairman of Barclays Bank, who said in 1970, in reply to a protest by a youth
354
about financial integrity in connection with Cabora Bassa:
"It is time people realised that the trade of this world is so entwined that if you were to cut yourself off for matters of principle there would be no world trade."
So here we are, in complete ethical chaos. Here is the real permissive society to which we belong, of which the permissive society in its more popular understanding is simply derivative. Complete ethical chaos. The Common Market will deepen the confusion, not alleviate it. If we go in the deepest danger of all looms up. It was our present Foreign Secretary, when he was Prime Minister, who said:
"I believe the greatest danger ahead of us is that the world might be divided on racial lines. I see no other danger, not even the nuclear bomb, which could be so catastrophic as that."
The Common Market will do nothing to alleviate that danger, but there are many things about it that might well enhance it. Britain must think again, and think big, and think new. To quote Winston Churchill again, and to conclude:
"Every time we must choose between Europe and the open sea, we will choose the open sea."
10.54 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, in the early years of the war, and again immediately after it, I was engaged in correspondence by means of circular letter with 100 Americans scattered all over the United States, and in one of the last of those letters—I believe it must have been early in the year 1946—I wrote:
"And I hope to see some form of union between the British Commonwealth and Empire and Western Europe."
At that time, after the devastation of two World Wars, it seemed so obvious and so logical a conclusion. Nothing that has happened in the intervening 25 years has caused me to change my mind. Indeed, everything that has happened has only confirmed me in my original view.
Many noble Lords will know the depth of my attachment to the Commonwealth and my involvement in it. I would not, to use a phrase coined by a noble Lord speaking late last night, willingly turn my back upon the Commonwealth. But in the course of this debate we have heard that the New Zealand Government are more than satisfied with the terms set out

355
in the White Paper. We have heard that the sugar producing countries are also content with the agreement reached.
But I was very interested to hear something—and I hoped I would hear something—about the smaller independent countries and developing countries of the Commonwealth, and thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who raised this point at the end of yesterday's debate, the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, replied that it was considered that those developing countries would benefit more from their entry into the Common Market than they do at present by their special arrangements with the United Kingdom. I would have wished for some evidence of this optimism, but I think my desire was answered very adequately to-day by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who cited some most interesting figures showing that the developing countries, and the ex-colonies of France, and so on, associated with the Common Market have in fact benefited considerably, not only in overseas aid given in cash and in technical co-operation but also in the quantity and value of their exports to the Common Market. Therefore I am satisfied that we are not leaving any part of the Commonwealth in the lurch.
Again, I think it is perhaps rather surprising that the only speech that we have heard about agriculture and the effects of our entering the Common Market on this country—the only speech in depth—was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and as a farmer I can hardly refrain from referring to it. I agree with the noble Lord that, generally speaking, the farmers in this country will be considerably better off. What will happen, of course, is that the consumers of this country will have to face up to realities which have been hidden from them for the past 24 years. In other words, subsidies that have been received by farmers have been subsidies in aid to support a cheap food policy, and that now will cease. Therefore I think it would be very welcome if the noble Baroness who is to reply to-night could dwell at some little length on the increase in food prices that is to be expected, and how we are to deal with them. In doing so she will be answering some criticisms
356
made by the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, about how these prices may be cushioned in respect of old age pensioners and the poorer sections of our community, and also to what extent we may expect that this increase in prices may be met by a rising standard of living as a result of our entering the European Economic Community.
There is another aspect of the agricultural policy, and that is the much criticised aspect of the very heavy levies we shall have to pay to the E.E.C. I believe the figure of £600 million has been mentioned, and this will be paid mainly to so-called inefficient French farmers. But surely this is not going to be for ever? It may not even go very far beyond the transitional period of five years. I assume—and I hope I am right—that increasingly the budget of the E.E.C. will be spent in other directions, and not only on industry and technology but in regional development and social welfare. We have been told that the standards of social benefits and social welfare generally are now higher on the Continent of Europe than they are in this country; and one would hope to see a great deal of the E.E.C. budget spent to raise the social welfare levels in this country, and the levels of regional areas which are experiencing some depression at the moment—a point very ably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, yesterday. I hope again here that more can be said by the Government, not only now but in the future, to allay the anxieties of the people on this score.
It was left to two noble Baronesses yesterday to bring out for the first time the vital contribution that we can make to Europe rather than what we can get out of it. If I may say so, I thought this was a typically and essentially feminine approach, and one which I welcome very much. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, yesterday referred not only to our past contributions but to our future contributions. I believe that one of the most important reasons for us going into Europe is the contribution we can make to the future of Europe, and I think this is one of the main reasons why the Six countries now have invited us to join them.
There was another matter, first mentioned, albeit briefly, by the noble Lord,

357
Lord Gladwyn. He said he thought this idea would appeal to the younger generation, and this was enlarged upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I am sure they are right. I have a sizeable family whose ages spread over a period of 20 years from the eldest to the youngest, and I know very well that even to-day the young recognise no barriers of nationality or language, irrespective of whether they speak the language; there is the language of youth which crosses the frontiers. They are all profoundly anti-war, and I am quite sure that in future this network of communications, referred to in a most original maiden speech yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Burgh, will be very much their thing, as they would say, and I am sure if we decide to join the Community this is the thing they will follow, and manage admirably, imaginatively and responsibly. This again is a very important feature of the problem we are called upon to decide in the near future. It was confirmed not only by the noble Lord, Lord Burgh, but by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, both speaking for the younger generation.
I would say to the critics of our proposed entry into the Common Market that they are not only dwelling too much on the risks involved, and upon the fears, perhaps natural to many of our people, but they are dwelling too much also on what we can get out of it rather than what we can put into it, and not dwelling sufficiently on the adventurous spirit and the way in which the people of this country adapt themselves to new challenges. I think they are too full of suspicion and hostility. This is a partnership of friends, we are going into, not enemies, a partnership where mutual trust is not only essential but entirely rational to presuppose, where friendship and reason must, and does, and will prevail. Of this I am sure, and this is the spirit in which we should go in. Let us finish with this antiquated talk of not trusting the foreigner. Why should they trust us, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack asked in his opening speech to-day, if we should back down at the last minute. It is a question of mutual trust, and there is no reason to suppose that trust is lacking in any quarter of the E.E.C.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, with a traditional ultra-conservative
358
speech, who was left almost single-handed manning the ramparts of Durham Castle. But he was very surprised, and asked why the aristocrats in this House should not join him. My ancestors came from Europe more than 1,000 years ago; I believe they were a cross between a Viking and a Saxon. Since then my ancestors have manned the ramparts of Europe in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and my family crest of five feathers was gained on the field of Crecy. And since then another ancestor well known to historians, Jacob Astley, manned the ramparts in the Lowlands and Germany, and I see no reason why I and my son should not continue to man the ramparts, this time assisting rather than fighting the Europeans. That is my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I inform the noble Lord that one of my ancestors lost all his baggage in the Wash?
LORD HASTINGS: And I lost mine at the end of the war in Yugoslavia hijacked over the border from Trieste, but that is a different story.
Finally, to sum up, on the practical aspect I would only say that I am convinced that no Government would recommend terms unacceptable to the mass of this people, injurious to the interests of this nation, and incapable of fulfilment, whether it be Conservative, Labour or Liberal. I am utterly convinced of that. As for the ideological and idealistic aspect, surely this is our new role, suited to the younger generation who, after all, in the not too distant future will be taking over from us. Above all, I believe it is the Christian way, the civilised way, and the peaceful way, through friendship and strength, for a better world for all Europe and mankind.
11.6 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I want to return to the theme of one of the earlier speeches in this debate. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, when he discussed the question of regional policies in relation to the Community. Before doing so, I am tempted to say a word about the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary. I have frequently looked for guidance from the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod. I

359
share his spiritual faith, and acknowledge a great debt to the noble Lord for his bringing religious values to bear on some of the great social problems that confront our people. Having said that, I must confess that I find it difficult to be so certain about the issue which confronts us as the noble Lord. He seems to prophesy gloom with an assurance that I am afraid I cannot command. He seems to interpret the move to Europe as some kind of capitalist conspiracy, designed to destroy the liberties of the individual and our democratic institutions. I am probably the only Member of this House who was a member of a European socialist party. I was a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, the S.P.D., and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, that the German socialists cherish their democratic institutions, having lost them in their lifetime, and are as concerned about democratic freedom and liberty as the noble Lord.
I am impressed by the fact that, despite all that is said concerning the dangers to world peace in this kind of alliance, it was on the initiative of Willy Brandt, the leader of the German Social Democratic Party, that a determined effort is being made to secure a rapprochement between East and West. I think we are quite wrong if we interpret this development in these kind of conspiratorial terms. If anything, with a very substantial Communist Party in France, a very substantial Communist influence in Italy, and a Social Democratic Party in power in Germany, probably the capitalists have as much to fear from this alliance with a Social Democratic Party from the United Kingdom joining that group.
However, I have been diverted from my main concern by the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary. My concern is really with regional policy, and I am sure that anyone who lives, as I do, in Scotland, cannot but pose the question: how will this affect economic policy in the regions? The unemployment rate in Scotland is running at the moment at about twice the national average. The male rate of unemployment in Scotland is over 8 per cent. On Clydeside unemployment is almost reaching 10 per cent. Young graduates are leaving our educational institutions skilled and trained
360
with no immediate prospect of employment. Those of us who are concerned about these matters must ask the question: are the principles in regard to regional development, to which the last Government and this Government have subscribed, protected in the new arrangements?
It is important that we establish one or two facts in regard to regional development, and the first is this. There can be no prosperity in the regions outside of national prosperity. The decline in investment nationally simply hits the regions more fiercely. So our concern with regional development is not an isolated concern. It is a concern for national growth. I am not suggesting for a moment that joining the E.E.C. inevitably guarantees growth. Growth and national prosperity in our economy will depend on marshalling our skills and resources to take the opportunities which will now be open to us. But I must say that, having heard the debate and having pondered this very big question, we have to face the fact that the prospects for economic growth appear to be greater by association with the Community, than in the restricted market potential of an off-shore island in Europe. So that our concern for the regions must, first of all be a concern for national growth and national prosperity, and on that score I suggest that joining the Market appears more likely—although not guaranteed—to assure some degree of prosperity in the regions.
In talking about the regions, I can perhaps speak more specifically of Scotland which has been fortunate in the post-war years. It has attracted 20 per cent. of all new American investment in this country, and 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. of the gross national product of Scotland is from these new American firms which have moved into the region. This has been a beneficial development. I am interested in the fact that some of my Socialist colleagues seem to have the attitude that we should be hostile to the entry of international trading organisations into our country. Whatever we may decide on the E.E.C. issue, these great international concerns will still be there, and I think that all of us who have seen the operation of some of them in the economy of Scotland will agree that

361
their contribution has been beneficial in a number of directions.
First, they have helped to bring new diversity into industry. Secondly, they have introduced new and refreshing ideas into management and labour relations. Consequently, the intervention of the multi-national company in Scotland and the regions is something that we have sought and encouraged. Having said that, I think the possibilities of attracting further development of that kind will be restricted if we can offer only the British market. In the very nature of modern technology, large concerns require European markets, and consequently Antwerp will in these circumstances always be more attractive than East Kilbride or Cumbernauld.
In the last few months I have been engaged, at the request of the Scottish Council and with the support of the Government, in trying to attract European investment to Scotland. I have visited the Continent, I have met the banks and the institutions, and I have talked to the chambers of commerce with a view to stimulating their interest in investment in Scotland. I believe that such investment will be encouraged if we enter the E.E.C. I think psychologically it will be more attractive, as well as offering the prospect of a larger market. So for these reasons, in terms of regional development, entry into the E.E.C. is an attractive proposition. But it is said by some people that entry into the Common Market will restrict our incentives; that it will limit the opportunities that we can offer. This is hardly true. While in the Treaty of Rome there is no specific reference to a common regional policy, the preamble to the Treaty refers to the need for member States to strengthen the unity of their economies and to ensure their harmonious development by diminishing both the disparities between the various regions and the backwardness of the less favoured regions. In Italy at the moment they are passing legislation to restrict economic development in their golden triangle—the area of Milan, Turin and Genoa. They are taxing industries in these areas in order to find resources to assist and invest in the less developed areas of their country.
So there is no conflict between a vigorous I.D.C. policy in the United
362
Kingdom and our obligations under the Treaty of Rome. In fact, there will be an attempt in the Market to harmonise some of the investment incentives. Anyone who has been engaged in this business of attracting industry will appreciate that in Europe to-day there is a great outbidding of countries in offering incentives. This is an undesirable thing, and it has some advantages for us if we get some uniformity in the kind of incentives which are offered. I am quite sure that because of the other benefits which we can offer in terms of skills and resources—the skilled labour that is available, the quality of our life, the way we live in this country—these kinds of incentives will then count.
Like other noble Lords from Scotland who have spoken, I am much concerned about the welfare of Scotland, and I hope that we shall get all the assurances that we require concerning the Government's commitment to regional policies from the noble Baroness who is winding up the debate to-night. The social costs of the concentration of people in a small part of this country are tremendously high—the costs in roads and rail subsidies, and so on. The fact that in this country we have had a tendency to concentrate people and resources in a small area, with its inflationary impact, while other areas have vast under-utilised assets, is bad social planning.
So I hope that, despite our enthusiasm for the larger unit, there will be a continued commitment to regional development. I hope that, in our enthusiasm for Europe, we shall weigh up schemes like the Channel Tunnel and ask ourselves whether in fact this might not encourage and promote a further concentration of people and resources in the South-East corner of England, while there is an adequate transport system spread throughout the ports of this country from Aberdeen to Southampton.
So I welcome the White Paper even with its limited assurances regarding regional policies, and I am satisfied that the acceptance of the White Paper will not limit regional development. I would welcome assurances accordingly from the noble Baroness who is to wind up.
11.20 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, the decision for which

363
Parliament is preparing itself is one that it must make for a country which is extremely confused and bewildered about this issue. That is not surprising in view of the complexities of the issue, but I think it is true to say that a great many of the main policy movements of this country have taken place without a specific decision. We moved into colonialism and the imperialist sphere in the past without any definite declaration of policy. We have become a multi-racial society in the last few years, again not by a declaration of policy. Even our great involvements in Europe and elsewhere through wars have come under such pressures that the decision seemed almost inevitable.
When it comes to the debates on the European Economic Community, which have been going on for a number of years, these have always in the past been under certain conditions: namely a recognition that whatever we were saying at that point, however ready or otherwise we were, was conditional upon what terms that could later be made and on the reaction of other countries, and one notably in particular. It is only during this year that this country has become faced with the "crunch" of an actual decision. It is not surprising that there are a number of different reactions. Some of them as voiced here powerfully and recently by the noble Lord, Lord McLeod of Fuinary, are very positively against such a decision to go forward, either on grounds of principle or on the grounds that the kind of terms we have or that we might reasonably have been expected to obtain, were not such as to justify taking such a step.
I am more concerned by what seems partly to be a mood of indecision in this country, a mood perhaps of lethargy and tiredness about it all, a kind of sluggish fearfulness about taking a step involving any upheaval in our national life, and a lack of confidence in our own abilities. It would be disastrous if that mood were in any sense to influence the kind of decision we make. Decisions must be dynamic things. Even a decision to say, "No" is equally a decision. But where a decision to say, "Yes", to go forward, has something of creative imagination about it or an act of will, a decision to say, "No" when it means
364
simply remaining where you are does not require the same output of energy or response. If a decision to say"No"was based on conscious and deliberate alternative policies, that is one thing; if it were based on a kind of fearfulness of the unknown, on a clinging to the security of the present or a holding on to the past, that would be a decision from weakness and not strength. It would be disastrous for the morale of this land. I go over the Border for one quotation:
"He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That dares not put it to the touch
To gain or lose it all."
The kind of decision we have to make is a Parliamentary decision, and must not be taken away from Parliament. It will be making such a choice on behalf of the people, but as that body to which the important decisions of the nation have always been entrusted. One of the main criticisms of Parliamentary democracy as a form of government, as opposed to more autocratic forms, is that it finds it more difficult, in the multiplicity of freedoms freely expressed and pressures freely exercised to take decisive action. Hence the way we handle this kind of decision will be a measure of our own political health. I hope that we shall therefore act resolutely. The right decision is not only a balancing of the alternative possibilities; a right decision implies the right moment, that there is a tide in the affairs of men, and so on. The tide may go out if we do not take it at that moment.
Therefore the considerations of the moment are also very important. But I think a right decision also is not just a"here and now, once and for all"thing. Decisions become right or wrong rather more according to the way in which we follow them out. The test comes afterwards in the kind of response which a decision is able to evoke in the people who have made it. It will be of cardinal importance that, although there will be opposing views and already they are forcibly expressed, and minorities, larger or smaller, engaged in it, when Parliament does make a decision of this nature it should be accepted as a national decision. There are problems of immense importance to be worked out, and working them out will require a great output of national energy and will. The question

365
is whether we are up to this. We shall be making a declaration of policy, almost a declaration of peace, which commits us as much as a declaration of war would. If, after making the decision, we were to drag our feet or to fall out with one another in bickerings of Party and otherwise, or even encourage the divisions there are in this country, we should be bringing the whole experiment into hazard and I think we should do irreparable damage to our own national wellbeing.
For this reason a "Yes", and in my heart I hope it will be "Yes", means a positive act. It is the courage to accept something, not just as an economic step but as a creative venture which will affect our destiny. At the moment, no doubt, there are the immediate consequences, the immediate problems to be worked out and there will be people on whom the burden falls more heavily than on others for whom we must be responsible; but I take it that the real beneficiaries who will be the most affected will be our descendants. What are we wanting for them? Beyond all the economic and even political questions it may be said that it is something of an act of faith. What does that mean? An act of faith in what? An act of faith in our own people and their future and their energy? An act of faith in Europe and its role in the New World? Yes; but when we speak of Europe, and we have spoken of it in this debate, we have spoken in different terms from what other people think of Europe. To other parts of the world Europe has been a source of exploitation, domination, aggrandisement, ideological war and the source itself of wars which not only have been fought between us on its soil but have involved them. That is part of the appearance of Europe to the rest of the world. Surely what we are desiring is a Europe which looks different from that and presents a different kind of face, not only in its heritage but also in the fact of what it can contribute in its potentialities for the future.
We know that this need not be, but it could be a kind of factory or supermarket or bureaucratic machine, a power bloc. It could be that, but it need not be that. Surely one of the things we shall try to bequeath to our descendants if we take this step is something more of a vision
366
for their future than the economic promises. If we stood aside from something which really held out prospects for them, or appeared to enter into it because we thought it not a vision but a mirage, we might be considered by them to have shut a door which they would have dearly liked to keep open and which would have given them a chance of getting out of some of the nationalistic straitjackets which I think they would deplore more than we do. Whether this can be done in the great world as a whole unity, without the individual steps that make for it, I very much doubt. I am very much with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in feeling that this step towards Europe is a step towards that. Anyhow, I would throw my weight from this Bench with those who have spoken on behalf of this, not indeed as a golden promise but in terms of great potentiality.
In conclusion, it would be only fair to say that, even though this is a Parliamentary decision, it is ultimately a national decision, one that the people have to work out. We have a great deal of the attitude of isolationism in this land, which has to be worked out of our system before we can achieve a different kind of approach. From these Benches we must, in sackcloth, admit that we have contributed to this attitude. Many of the religious divisions in the world have emanated from the Churches of Europe, and the Churches have not always helped people of different races and traditions to live side by side. Obviously, there is a part which the Christian Churches in Europe must play, not only in the integration of Western Europe but also in the approach to something more. In the last fifteen years there has been growing up a strong body of Christian opinion among the Churches of Europe, East and West, a growing sense of European unity in their desire to make peace a possibility for the Continent. Again and again those Churches have looked to the Churches of this country for their share in this, not for any special wealth we can give to them but because we have our own experience, and political experience, which others lack. I take that as a good augury for the fact that in other ways we can make our particular contribution, which I hope we shall have the courage and faith to make.
11.32 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, on such an occasion as this, my first and perhaps only duty is to declare where I stand. I am unrepentantly a supporter of our joining the Common Market. I do not pretend to be able to evaluate the economic pros and cons, whether in the short term or the long term. In any event, it seems to me, with all humility, that the fundamental case for joining is political and cultural rather than economic. But this does not mean in any sense that it should be a Party issue. Having said that, at this very late hour, perhaps one's next duty ought to be to sit down. I resist that temptation but I will try to make amends for so doing by being as brief as possible.
I propose to confine myself to one specific issue, and that is the argument that adherence to the Rome Treaty would in some way involve an infringement of our sovereignty. The term "sovereignty" is one not very much used by the man in the street but rather by lawyers, political scientists and journalists. If we take this term in any sense other than as a mere political slogan, I think that it needs to be appreciated that it bears two fairly precise meanings. First of all, it describes the legal power within a State to pass laws, subject to any limitations imposed by the constitution. In the second place, it is used to denote the legal freedom of action of a State vis-à-vis other States in the international community, subject to international law and any treaty obligations. Of course, all civilised States consider themselves bound by international law and thus any treaty obligations which are accepted by this country will be binding on us in international law. If, however, a treaty involves a change in our domestic law, this will have to be embodied in a Statute, if it is to be given effect to by our courts. It is now established beyond controversy that no treaty, whether it is a far-reaching treaty like the United Nations Charter or the Rome Treaty, or a more limited treaty, such as a copyright or postal convention, involves a breach of State sovereignty as such. Indeed, far from being a limitation on sovereignty, the right of entry into binding international obligations is itself regarded as an attribute of sovereignty. This view has been reiterated on many occasions in many weighty judgments both of
368
international and State courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States.
But, it is argued, the Rome Treaty is in some way different from all other treaties. Why is this? The main point seems to be that it is a perpetual treaty, or at least it is presumed to be perpetual because there is no provision for termination. In fact, many treaties contain no provision for revision or termination. This applies especially to commercial treaties, but also to a good many political treaties as well, such as, for example, the United Nations Charter. Admittedly, international law is comparatively undeveloped as to the position regarding such treaties. For example, it is doubtful whether it is possible in such a treaty to imply a term as to its possible termination, or whether the doctrine of frustration in contract would apply where there has been a substantial unforeseen change of circumstances. These are all matters which are discussed in the authoritative textbooks and I do not wish to detain your Lordships on them.
The simple point remains that, even if the Treaty is a perpetual treaty, this is in no way inconsistent with our sovereignty. Some people, and particularly perhaps journalists and politicians, when they talk about sovereignty have in mind rather different matters. What they seem to have in mind is either actual power or political freedom of action. I venture to suggest here that the article in The Times last Friday by Sir Derek Walker-Smith tended, to some extent, to confuse these concepts with the more precise meanings to which I have just referred.
The power that can be exercised in the world is obviously the result of many factors, such as the size, economic strength, political skill, military forces and so forth, of any particular country. It seems scarcely arguable, however, that our role in power politics can be significantly weakened by adhesion to the E.E.C. The chances are, one would have thought, that it would be increased. As to political freedom of action, by which I suppose is meant control over our own affairs, adherence to any treaty whatever must restrict this to some extent; and, of course, such limitations are more far-reaching in the case of our joining a wide-ranging association such as E.E.C.
This brings me to three unusual features of the Rome Treaty which I think call for

369
comment. The first is the role of the Court of Justice in interpreting the Treaty under Article 117. This is an important matter, since the Treaty constitutes an overriding Community law for the member States. It is obviously vital, however, that interpretation of this Treaty should be uniform. It would be quite absurd if the courts of each member State could arrive at different decisions on the meaning of provisions in the Treaty. Accordingly, the Court of Justice of the Community, and not the House of Lords or any other supreme court of any member State, is to be the binding tribunal for deciding questions of interpretation. This will undoubtedly impose an unprecedented limitation on our judicial system. But surely there is nothing invidious in our courts deferring to the Court of Justice on these issues; the arrangement is really a sensible one in order to achieve uniformity of interpretation.
Your Lordships should bear in mind that the range and scope of Community law will affect only relatively limited fields in our law—for example, labour law, transport, monopolies and restrictive practices, company law and patents. In particular, and I think this is of great significance and is often overlooked, it will not affect any fields of our domestic law such as criminal law, matrimonial, property, contract, tort or other general fields of law. Nor, apart from Article 177, which I mentioned, will it affect our court system or procedure, whether civil or criminal. The impact of Common Market law, while important, should not be exaggerated or misunderstood.
Secondly, there is the law-making power of certain organs of the E.E.C. This extra-legislative power is certainly unusual, but it should be pointed out that its scope is of a limited character, tied to particular purposes as set out in specific Articles of the Treaty. Under our law, moreover, any E.E.C. directives will have to be given effect to by our own Parliamentary action.
Thirdly, there are enforcement procedures which are provided for in particular cases which are to be operated by organs of the E.E.C., including the imposition of penalties and the power in certain instances to authorise entry into premises, inspection of books and so forth. Although these powers operate only in restricted spheres, they are fairly far-reaching in principle and are capable of
370
arousing some anxiety. In this connection, therefore, I think two points need to be made. The first is this: important safeguards are provided in the Treaty, and in the directives and regulations issued thereunder, such as the need for a party to be heard before a penalty is imposed, and also for rights of appeal. As regards penalties, I should point out that the penalties are not in any event in the nature of criminal penalties but are civil penalties.
As for the use of compulsion, where entry or inspection is involved, the member State on whose territory the power is exercised can insist on its own officials co-operating. Secondly, the previous Labour Government in their White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications of United Kingdom membership of the European Community, issued as long ago as May 1967, clearly satisfied themselves after close scrutiny that there is nothing objectionable from our point of view in these provisions; and I am not aware that English lawyers with specialist knowledge of these matters have expressed any serious concern.
Lastly, my Lords, there is the argument that E.E.C. will involve us sooner or later in a true federation, a United States of Europe analogous to the United States of America. This certainly would involve a transference of sovereignty, but there is nothing in the Rome Treaty which requires this. It would involve a total volte face on the present policy, a complete restructuring of the present Common Market, and in any event we should have a right of veto. Sooner or later a trend in the direction of federation may, of course, emerge, but surely this will be a problem for the next generation to tackle.
By signing the Rome Treaty we are in no way pre-empting the position, or in no way committing our descendants to an advance in this direction. In any event, may we not ask: what is there so frightening about such an ultimate outcome, especially, I venture to suggest, for internationally-minded Socialists who have long inveighed against the evils of national sovereignty? The point is, for the time being at any rate, academic, and I will not dwell on it further. My Lords, I conclude that there is really no substance in the argument that our

371
sovereignty will be abandoned or infringed by our joining the Common Market. Further emphasis on this non-issue can only serve to confuse rather than enlighten the nation's judgment on whether we should or should not adhere to the Rome Treaty.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down might I just ask him one question? Supposing that we enter into a monetary union, which is the declared object, as I understand it, of the Government, should we be sacrificing any sovereignty or not?
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I am obliged to the noble Lord for raising that. I should think clearly not. This is no different from joining, say, a postal union which forces us to accept certain legal obligations. The legal obligations may be more far-reaching in one case as against another, but certainly it would tot infringe our sovereignty—Parliament would still remain sovereign—and it would simply be an international obligation under the Treaty.
LORD GLADWYN: If we have a monetary union, it would be run by some Authority of, say, ten States, in which there would be a unanimity rule, and I imagine therefore that they would arrive at some decision on the bank rate, or whatever it may be, by means of a unanimous vote—which would mean placing a veto on everybody. Is that right?
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: This would depend on the terms of the monetary union; and can we really talk about a monetary union in these very generalised terms?
11.47 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN: My Lords, I am speaking to-night in order to add my name to the roll of those who are in favour of joining the Community. The difficulty in speaking about this question is to find the happy mean between the grandiose and the grocer's shop. I speak from the rather narrow point of view of one who has dealt all his life with the foreign relations of this country. It has been conclusively proved in your Lordships' House to-day that we shall be ruined if we go into the Community and ruined if we do not—a dismal prospect. I am not so ambitious as to propose to
372
prove or disprove either; but I propose only to say very briefly, in simple and almost elementary terms, how I see the underlying political argument.
As we got rid of our Empire and watched the Commonwealth grow away from us, as the balance of power in the world changed radically to our disadvantage, we found it difficult to take in the rapid changes in the world environment and in our position in it. We have sometimes been like Kipling's village which voted that the earth was flat, and we have sometimes been bemused by sentimental recollections of a vanished past. We now have to find our right place in the new environment, the right framework in which the qualities of our country can be most profitably employed. We have always adapted our political and historical traditions to changing circumstances, which is merely common sense, and that is what we have to do again now.
We are now a European State of medium power, dependent, as we always have been, on our alliances for our security and on world-wide free trade for our prosperity, facing two super-Powers who are prone from time to time to think that all major decisions on international questions should be in their hands. Our old European allies are coming together because they believe that this is the way to assure their political and economic future. It is the way in which we can best assure our future too. If we join them in the Community we shall strengthen them and help to ensure that Europe does not disintegrate politically, which would be a disaster for Europe and ourselves. We can share in and influence the decisions which will be made by them and us together and which, if we stay outside, will be made by them alone, and which will, in either case, vitally affect our future. With them we can have a real say in shaping the kind of world in which we want to live. In the Community we shall be better placed to press for the conditions which are necessary if we are to achieve a détente with Eastern Europe which will not compromise our security and political independence.
If Europe, with us as a part of it, gives promise of strength and stability, we shall be far more likely to be able to ensure the continued commitment of the United States to European security. We shall be able to provide the political

373
backing which our defensive alliance requires. From within the Community we shall be in a better position to ensure that it is outward looking and that we have the world-wide trading conditions on which the health of our economy depends.
If, however, we decide to plough a lonely furrow on the edge of Europe, we shall have little say in shaping the world of the future. Europe without us will be more likely to fall into political disarray, and the American commitment to European defence will be far less sure. If we turn away from Europe we are likely to face strong American revulsion against our blindness to our own and the general good. I have personally had a warning of this from a distinguished American politician recently. We shall be more likely to face a world-wide tariff war which will seriously damage our interests, and of which there is now a real danger. We shall inevitably fall back in the world, in terms of economics and politics, because we shall be in the wrong place. I believe, like many others who have spoken in these terms, that we have the talent, resourcefulness and flexibility which will enable us to prosper in the Community. Those who want to reject this opportunity, who talk about an inward-looking community, are looking inward themselves. The economic calculations are more and more being seen to favour our entry, at least in the long-term. But our decision must still to some extent be an act of faith, faith that the qualities of our countrymen are such that we can accept the challenge with confidence and thus find our proper place in the radically changed world of the late twentieth century.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he used the phrase that we have"got rid of"our Empire. I am sure that, on reflection, he will appreciate that that was an unfortunate choice of words and will no doubt wish to correct the Record.
LORD TREVELYAN: Would the noble Lord like to explain his remark a little more fully?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, returning to dependent territories the independence to which they are entitled must not be des-
374
cribed in terms as if we were disengaging ourselves from an onerous obligation. It was giving justice to people who needed it.
LORD TREVELYAN: This is a matter on which it is hardly necessary to go into to-day to try to get the exact terms for a process which led to our no longer having the Empire that we had before.
11.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT CALDECOTE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, I am a convert to our joining the Common Market, although a much later convert than he. I must confess that when the last two rounds of negotiations failed I was rather pleased. I realise now that that was to take much too short-term an outlook, for this issue, of all issues, is one for our children and our grandchildren, and not so much for us. Also, in travelling around Europe I have met so many European businessmen and others who show such great enthusiasm for the Common Market, and one sees so few voices raised against the Treaty of Rome, or against the new arrangements under which they now exist. One feels that this country cannot be so different from the other six who have joined the Common Market as to make it wrong for us to join it, too. But there are three great difficulties in considering the the pros and cons of our joining the Common Market.
First of all, the full effects of our joining will be delayed for many years, perhaps for a whole generation; so that accurate estimation of the balance of advantage is virtually impossible. Secondly, such calculations as can be made must inevitably be based on assumptions of how people will react to new conditions, and that introduces another major factor of uncertainty. And, thirdly, the effects on different industries in this country will vary very greatly. So I conclude that we can obtain only very limited help from figures. Of course, we must use figures and calculations to the greatest possible extent to limit the area of judgment; we must use them where accurate calculation is possible to indicate degrees of uncertainly or sensitivity to varying assumptions. But ultimately there is bound to be a wide incalculable area which can be covered only by responsible judgment. I therefore reject utterly the idea

375
that, because we do not have accurate figures, or because of some alleged idea that the Government are trying to hide figures which they have, this is a reason for opposing our entry into the Common Market. Surely this is merely a groping for support of an opinion which has been taken for other reasons, good or bad.
How, then, can we exercise judgment responsibly in this great issue? It is a type of situation that is well known in the business world: the need to take a decision on information which is wholly inadequate, which means that one has to find what facts one can and use them, and use logic and judgment beyond those facts. Of course, the easiest thing in the world to do is to accept that the information is inadequate; that it is all too difficult, and so we had better stay as we are. Certainly there are many genuine arguments against our joining the Common Market, but that would he the worst one of all: that we simply threw it out because we found it all too difficult.
So I suggest that we must observe and take note of what facts there are: such facts as the higher growth rate in the Common Market countries, and their higher rate of investment since it was formed; the very few voices that are raised against the Common Market among the members; that 15 years ago half our exports went to the Commonwealth and about a quarter to Europe, and to-day those figures are almost exactly reversed. And there are many other factors. Then we must look for logical deductions. The bigger the market, the greater the opportunities that our joining the Common Market will give us—opportunities for specialisation, for cost reduction and for an expansion of our sales. In this connection, I cannot help being greatly saddened by the attitude of our great trade unions and the Trades Union Congress. In this country at the moment, great hardship is being caused by mergers, resulting in closing of factories because in many industries there is too great capacity. There is too great capacity in many industries because there is inadequate demand for the products of those industries, and the only way in which we can get away from this situation is to have an expanding market for our products. I cannot understand how
376
our great trade unions can believe that a stick-in-the-mud attitude, a staying out of Europe, can benefit their members. It seems to me that it is all in their, interest to have this wider market so that we can move from closures to investment and expansion.
It can also be argued that the Common Market will produce a larger base on which to spread the development costs of high technology. That certainly is true in the long term. But at present, in the short term, we must ask ourselves why it is that the French do not buy power stations from other countries of the Common Market, or why they do not buy power stations or computers or aircraft from England. The reasons are not because of some tariff barrier but because of nationalism. That nationalism, I believe, will decline as the Common Market develops; and surely it is of the utmost importance that we should be there to help those developments in the Common Market to go along the lines which will be in our interests. Perhaps, my Lords, this is the greatest issue of all, which has been mentioned by many speakers in this debate already: that we must be in the Common Market to influence the decisions, to influence the way things are going over the next ten, twenty or fifty years, which will have such an enormous effect on our children and our grandchildren.
My Lords, I accept that it is perfectly logical to argue that we must not go into the Common Market—not now, not ever—because it is fundamentally wrong; that independence is of paramount importance, and that we can have greater influence in the world if we stay outside the Common Market. That I know is a sincerely held view by many, and I respect it. But it is absurd, it is misleading, ridiculous, to suggest that we should go in—not now but perhaps later: because if we take that attitude then we are forgetting that the Common Market, like so many other things in life, is developing all the time. And if it develops without our influence in it the chances are that it will develop along lines which will be disadvantagous to us; and if we try to apply for entry again next year, or in five years' time, or in ten years' time, the conditions we shall have to accept will be much more onerous than those which we have achieved now. Therefore I believe

377
that it is now or never. Can we really believe that it is in our interests to remain outside, with our huge dependence on trade to keep this island, with its crowded population and with so few natural resources, prosperous? Is it really sensible to become progessively more isolated alongside a Europe which is becoming closer together economically and politically? Surely we cannot afford to remain aloof and impotent to influence the developments which are going to take place so close to us.
But, of course, there are problems of honour, which have been mentioned many times already in this debate yesterday and to-day: problems of honour to our old and trusted friends in the Commonwealth; and I believe that old ties of blood and kinship, of gratitude for unselfish and unhesitating support in the past, are important and are relevant. I think that we have in the past paid too little regard to these, but I believe that honour has been satisfied; that our friends in New Zealand, in Australia and elsewhere in the Commonwealth have a fair deal, and that they know, they believe, they accept, that it is in their interests that Britain should be strong, and that she can best be strong by joining the European Community of nations. I wish deeply that I could go along with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, in his very sincere speech in which he advised that we should keep out of the Common Market and, as I understood it, go along with the Commonwealth. I wish I could believe that that was a practical alternative. I believed this for a very long time, but I have come to believe, and indeed to be quite sure, that such a course is not practicable. Perhaps it was practicable fifteen years ago, but it is not practicable now.
As I have said, there are many honestly held views as to why we should stay out of the Common Market. But I believe that too many of the reasons given for staying out are based on fear: fear of more competition, fear of others grasping their new opportunities more effectively than we shall do ourselves; fear of not being able to hold our own in a wider circle; fear of change itself. I do not believe—and here I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, in his excellent maiden speech—that we have any need to fear
378
competition, to fear what is going to happen if we join the Common Market. But, anyway, fear is a bad motive for any action, and we should be guided by other, higher principles than that.
My Lords, every great venture involves risk and faith. Both are essential ingredients to any new challenge. Britain has stagnated for far too long between a glorious Imperial past and a search for a new role in the future—a new role which will capture the imagination of all our people, just as the Commonwealth and Empire caught the imagination of everyone in days gone by in different circumstances. I challenge the opponents of our entry into the Common Market to suggest any alternative which will provide this need, this challenge, more effectively than our entering the Common Market. So, because I believe that we can enter Europe honourably, that we shall have more influence in the world, that there will be more opportunities, if we take them, risks and all, for a brighter future for succeeding generations—because of all that, I strongly support the Government's application to join the Common Market and I hope that it succeeds.
12.5 a.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, after two days debate, knowing that one is to speak towards the end, one formulates in one's mind a number of seemingly brilliant comments on what previous speakers have said, and if this were at an earlier hour I have no doubt I could hold your Lordships' attention by making them; but as this is almost a captive audience I think it would be more to everybody's satisfaction if I did not. It is a disappointment to me. I was hoping to compare those two spiritual gad-flies, the noble Lord, Lord Soper and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the way they came to diametrically opposed conclusions from the same facts. I was hoping to compare, too, the gloomy, but very carefully and sincerely stated prognostications of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, with the cheerful but equally carefully stated prognostications of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther. I was hoping to pursue with the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary the question of a banker's ramp, which I always had a suspicion had something in it, and clearly we shall have

379
to look at this again. I was hoping to make some lighthearted, I hope not offensive, remarks about the fantastic and irresistible ability of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack to fan the embers of political controversy into a happy flame, but I shall refrain.
I think it is the business at this stage of Back Benchers like myself to leave general arguments to my betters. I will state my position clearly tout court, if I may break into what may later on become the vernacular, in the words so well said by my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins in the other place. I have nothing to add to his speech. It was complemented by my right honourable friend Mr. Harold Lever and my noble friend Lord George-Brown. I stand on those three speeches, and I wish to add nothing. But I do want to take up one rather boring and technical subject, and I hope I can keep your Lordships, captive as you are, with me until I have finished. I refer to the Common Agricultural Policy.
There are three objections that farmers have always made to the Common Market. The first relates to milk products from New Zealand; the second to sugar, and the third to agricultural policy. I have always taken the view that the first two could be dealt with and in fact they have been, and anyone in favour of entry cannot possibly quibble. Obviously, if you were always against it you do what you can with these agreements, but it seems to me that honour is satisfied on those two very difficult issues.
The Common Agricultural Policy is quite a different problem. It does not really depend on the terms. If it did, I think the rather lukewarm acquiescence recently of the N.F.U. would satisfy me. The policy really depends on whether it is viable at all. It is difficult to discuss this complex question shortly, and I must at this stage of the debate sacrifice clear exposition to brevity. Put shortly, the problems of agriculture in the E.E.C. are basically exactly the same as they are here. The size of farm business has to increase. The number of farms, farmers and farm workers has to diminish, so that the proceeds of the sale of the available output, for which there
380
is an inelastic demand, can be shared among fewer people so that their income may keep pace with the rising takings of expanding industry. This is a fearfully complicated sentence, but it is all there if you read it to-morrow. I think it stands up. It is what the economists have been telling us for years, but they usually take a page or two to do so.
We have been spectacularly successful in dealing with this problem here (more I think by luck than good management), but the fact remains that the number of farms, the number of farm workers and the number of farmers have all decreased notably, acreage has been transferred from smaller to larger farms, and our structure in the industry is well on the way to making sense. We have 60 per cent. of our farms under 20 hectares; the average in the Common Market is between 80 and 90. It is a very considerable advantage. All this has been done, not perhaps painlessly but with a minimum of hardship; with no more than average bankruptcies, about the same as builders, and serious protests have pretty well been confined to the rather bedraggled broiler which was presented to my right honourable friend Mr. Peart at his famous first Review in 1965, which he indignantly, and with great political insight, handed immediately to the R.S.P.C.A.
They have not been nearly so successful in the E.E.C. They have not travelled nearly as far along the road of rationalisation as we have, and they have incurred lethal riots on the way. They are now on the move. The indomitable Dr. Mansholt is making progress, and his famous and very radical Mansholt Plan is getting nearer to acceptance. Just in case your Lordships are not absolutely au fait with the Mansholt Plan, put very shortly it was designed to reduce the number of farmers from 10 million in 1971 to 5 million in 1980, and the proportion of the working population engaged on the land from 16 to 6 per cent. in the same period. It is a tremendously drastic plan.
If we go in, as I think and hope we shall, it is absolutely essential to our prosperity that we should join a viable agricultural economy and not, to put it in crude shorthand, a hopeless mess. What has worried me up to the events of this

381
last year has been the undeniable fact that the Common Agricultural Policy was indeed a hopeless mess. Because of the political pressures of small farmers on all Governments, prices were fixed too high in nearly all commodities and surpluses began to build up. And not only began. In 1964, there was a surplus of butter in store of 57,000 tons. This rose steadily until it had quadrupled itself by 1969, to 170,000 tons, to be precise. In 1968, the Commission warned the Council that if nothing were done it would rise to 540,000 tons by 1972, and as they only had storage for 450,000 tons it was a little awkward.
This figure was intended to scare, and scare it did. Drastic action was taken at last, and, a very interesting and unusual thing occurred for the Common Market, who do not normally agree with this kind of interference: they introduced slaughter grants of 200 dollars per dairy cow slaughtered, payable to farmers owning from 3 to 5 cows, if they agreed to give up milking altogether. This resulted in the elimination of 3 per cent., and almost certainly the most worthless 3 per cent., of the entire dairy herd of the E.E.C. With a little bit of luck, they did it. To everyone's immense relief this nightmare butter mountain melted away, and with it the main argument against our entry. The fact that they could not have succeeded without the weather only underlined the basic unpredictability of farming as a way of life. Succeed they did, and now there remains in store something under 26,000 tons, which we would very much like to have had in this country, but unfortunately it had been sold forward at a lower price.
The noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, spoke of the bursting granaries. He is a little out of date on this. The figure I got this morning is that the cereal stocks declined from a peak of over 14 million metric tons in July, 1968, to 8·6 million tons in July, 1970. There is no significant surplus of other commodities, according to my information. Those are the latest figures. I think that the noble Lord's figures applied to an earlier stage.
In 1966, advocates of going into the Common Market had to admit that the price of butter there was about twice the price at which we could buy it from New Zealand. But the price of butter from
382
New Zealand has risen while the price of butter in the Common Market has fallen, and they are now marginally the same. It is no longer a great worry. What is more, the E.E.C. will not produce this year any surplus of milk products over their own needs. This is a remarkable achievement. Of course the problem is not solved for all time; but they have demonstrated their ability, which we had very seriously begun to doubt, to deal in the end, and at astronomical cost, with the problems of surpluses. I think we may take it as absolutely certain that they will never make such a mess of any growing surplus as they did over butter. Incidentally, we can congratulate ourselves that we have not gone into the E.E.C. until the butter mountain has been disposed of at this great expense. The whole episode must greatly strengthen Dr. Mansholt's hand in persuading the member Governments to accept the elements of his famous Plan.
If and when we go in, let there be no doubt in our minds where we stand; that is, fair and square behind Dr. Mansholt. The prosperity of any agricultural community depends on bending to the economic wind, not legislating against it. The worst thing in the world for the housewife is to subsidise production on social or compassionate grounds. Solutions for areas which cannot compare, because of poor conditions, with more favourable neighbours lies in diversification, in amenities for tourism, in plans for conservation of wild life, in afforestation; not in producing at a loss something which next door can be produced at a profit. All this is in the Mansholt Plan and matches our own thinking. The Minister will have to reverse his initial mistakes—the abolition of the North Pennine Development Board, the filleting of the advisory services, the cutting of aid to the co-ops, and so on. But this should present no serious problem. One must not make too much of these sins of pride and over-confidence which most Governments commit when they first come to power. They are reversible and will, in fact, have to be reversed.
I believe that an efficient Common Agricultural Policy, with us as part of it, gives the British housewife the best prospect in the long term of cheap and healthy food that is available to us. The

383
old idea of buying food wherever it was cheapest depended for its validity on its being available and on the country from whom we bought it being willing to take our manufactured goods in exchange, either directly or indirectly. They are eating more themselves and trading more and more with our rivals, so it really looks as if these conditions are not going to prevail indefinitely. My own view is that we shall be much wiser to make firm and long-term contracts with the Six, who will shortly become the Ten and may before long grow to higher numbers.
Before I sit down, I should like to say something about the dilemma which is confronting some of my friends and colleagues who feel less favourable to entry in opposition than they did when we were in Government. I am lucky here in that my views have not changed, but it would be intolerably self-righteous to criticise anyone who finds himself in honest doubt. I should here like to echo the point made by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Southwark. My greatest political shame is that I supported the Labour Party when it refused to support re-armament against Hitler by the Chamberlain Government. My support then was even less important that it is now, but I have reproached myself ever since. There are some awkward similarities with the present case. The Chamberlain Government was certainly a very bad one, so we can see the analogy here. It was the last chance to re-arm before the outbreak of war, and we might well have lost the war if Labour policy had prevailed. I am afraid there is an analogy here. I will not take that point any further, but it makes me profoundly uncomfortable. I count myself lucky to be able to affirm with ever greater confidence what I affirmed in this House last March: that we would do well to accept entry as soon as possible into the Common Market.
12.20 a.m.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, it is nearly ten hours and 34 ordinary and 2 maiden speakers since we started our debate this afternoon. The maiden speeches, if I may say so, were both excellent, and we look forward to hearing more from both noble Lords. I think there are two speeches which stand out to-day, not necessarily because of their
384
superior oratory or excellence compared to others, but from the point of view that they were of such immense importance to us all in that those who made them really knew what they were talking about. I refer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, on coal, and the prospect that he gave us that there might be £100 million more coal exports to Europe; and to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stokes, who pointed out that motor car manufacture represents 10 per cent. of our economic activity and that what he wants is a chance to reach the great markets of Europe. I hope that those who did not have the opportunity to hear those speeches will read them, and that they will be widely reported throughout the country.
My Lords, I am a man of the Common Market both by upbringing and by conviction. I am by upbringing because my father was a great international civil servant and because I have enjoyed the friendship of Jean Monnet for over fifty years. I remember long ago talking and working with him on the ideal of one united Europe, and I remember well his absolute conviction that the one thing that was essential was that we should start on the economic side of unity and then all other things would follow. But when things went wrong, and we did not join in the Treaty of Rome, he did not despair; he went on unwaveringly in the belief that sooner or later we, a nation of realists, should join with others. Indeed, my Lords, we should have done some years ago, but for the phenomenon of General de Gaulle; and all during that time Jean Monnet and his Comité d'Action—a committee composed of many of the leading trade unions of Europe and some of their industrialists—worked unceasingly to try to bring us into Europe. I would ask our trade unionists to make contact once more with the trade unionists of Europe and to argue and debate with them before they come to the conclusion which is shortly to be reached when they hold their Congress. To-day we are on the threshold of entry, and I should like to take this opportunity to pay my tribute and express my thanks to Jean Monnet, who is one of the fathers of Europe.
Now, my Lords, my conviction. I will choose three reasons for my conviction: Scotland, the cost of living and

385
Germany. Your Lordships will not be surprised that I talk briefly on Scotland—on how, for example, its fishing interests or its hill farming will be protected. On the fishing, we do not know the end of the tale. I feel very much as did Lord Boothby, Lord Polwarth and others who have spoken on the subject: that we have got to get this right. I am fairly hopeful that we shall get it right, not only because of the rightness of our own claim but also because others who are to join with us—that is to say, Norway and Ireland—are deeply involved. For hill farming, we have it on record that our special problems are recognised. While on the subject of agriculture, I recall that the Chairman of the Scottish National Farmers' Union, while wanting to sit on the fence, did say the other day in his speech that anyway for the short period the conditions were tolerable. If I understand correctly what "tolerable" means, it means that they are not so bad, or perhaps even very good.
It is true that we in Scotland are on the edge of Europe; but so are others. Scotland has a long history of special relationships with Europe, be it with France or be it with the nations of the Baltic. I am confident that they do not want us to suffer. Why should they? Indeed, very much the opposite. I am satisfied that the fact that we are on the outside should not worry us. Let us now turn to the positive side of Scotland. What I have in mind there is a geographical chance that we have of being, as it were, the bridge from the oceans of the world to Europe itself. Talking of bridges, I ask the Government at this time to devote special attention to what would make that a reality: that is, to the roads, to rail and, above all, to the ports. Over the last years the port of Leith has been tragically neglected, owing to the policy of Governments which excluded it from being a special development area. We must put that situation right. I believe that this is one of the vital things for Scotland, not only now but also for the future.
Let me turn, briefly, to the cost of living. Back in September, 1969, I forecast in this House that in the next year or two we should see a rise in the cost of living such as we had never previously imagined. I felt that this was due not only to such things as changes in agricultural policy, perhaps connected
386
with the Common Market; not only to the great increase in wage demands (which was then already upon us) but, above all, to decimalisation to a wrong pound unit. I remember saying then that I expected that for this one reason we should see an increase in the cost of living of anything from 10 to 20 per cent. Levelling-up seemed to me a certainty. And so it has proved. So when we think—and many people are apt to say it—that it is going into the Common Market that has caused this rise in the cost of living, I can only say, though with no satisfaction, that eighteen months ago I felt this was going to happen; and not for that reason. But let us not forget that even if prices continue to rise—and they will rise slowly—there is another side to this coin. That is, that if things go well, we may fully and properly expect that our wages will rise. Ten years ago our wages—technically called, I think, the gross domestic product—were ahead of those of almost all the countries of the Six. To-day, we are at the bottom, or the bottom but one of the list. All that can change when we join the Market, and the fact that living costs may go up will surely be more than compensated for by our greater prosperity and greater earnings. In all this I prefer as my economist the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, who spoke yesterday, rather than Mr. Kaldor, upon whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, seemed to rely.
My Lords, my third reason is Germany. Here I must walk delicately lest I be misunderstood: I am not anti-German. But I cannot forget that we have fought two wars against Germany. I cannot forget the ruin that followed, the ruin of the Russian domination, and the fact that we were saved by the American shield and American help. West Germany to-day has wrought wonders of recovery. It has shown its absolute determination to turn from its bad ways and its ideas of conquest and to help to build the unity of Western Europe. But, my Lords, in its very success and strength there lies danger, unless we also are a part of Europe and unless, when unity between Germany and Eastern Europe comes—as surely it will do; and one day we shall have to face this problem—Germany is concerned more with Europe, with the inexorable mixed economies of Europe and what she is helping

387
to do, than with the unity of Germany. For that reason I believe it is of enormous importance, on political grounds, that we should join.
My Lords, I want to conclude with an appeal against boredom with The Common Market and against the attitude, "It is going to happen anyhow, so why should I care?" It may be true that it is going to happen, but this is an occasion when every individual in Britain, every man and woman, must care about what is happening and must take an active part in bringing about unity and the prospects and opportunities that arise from it. It is the chance of our lifetime, a chance to give reality to the dream of a thousand years, the unity of Europe by peaceful means rather than by those of conquest. If it is to be a reality, it is not only we in Parliament who must play our part, it is not only the men or the women of this country; it is, above all, the youth. Therefore I was vastly encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, told us about the general feeling of the youth of this country in favour of the Market. Let us, my Lords, go forward with the youth and build a new Europe.
12.34 a.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I feel it a very great responsibility to reply to what I think all will agree has been a great debate. I am glad to have some part in it because ever since that historic meeting at The Hague in 1948, which many noble Lords will vividly remember, I have always believed in a united Europe which Britain would help to shape. It was there that Sir Winston Churchill first tried to heal the deep divisions of a divided Europe. I must confess that the economic arguments took a long time to crystallise, but to me the political issue was always clear. That is why I feel it has been wonderfully heartening to-day to hear the powerful support that has been given from all parts of the House, from all political Parties, and including two notable maiden speeches, to Britain's entry into Europe.
I should like first to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham. When he spoke of the Schumann Plan he reminded me of those passionate de-
388
Bates which we used to have on federalism or whether it was to be a natural alliance of European nations. I thought the noble Lord was impressive in the way he spoke with his personal authority and knowledge of the coal industry. I thought he spoke with courage and as one who has been for this country a great public servant. Then I was very intrigued to hear the speech of my noble friend Lord Blake because I have so often enjoyed his writings. He spoke to us just as we would expect, attacking the question historically. He said that we must not be diverted by the smaller problems but must attack the question on a large historical scale. He reminded us, when we talked about the problems of the cost of living and of food, of the time when this country first decided upon free trade, that 80 per cent. of the cost depended upon food, whereas to-day it is only 22 per cent. I hope that we shall often hear him speak to us again.
This has been a long debate, of nearly ten hours, and we have heard 34 speakers. Twenty-seven have been in favour of Britain's entry into Europe and two were converts—the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, and the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote. We also had, I thought, five who were against it. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was against entry; the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, certainly so. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, certainly so; and the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. I had originally put my noble friend Lord Lauderdale as being against entry, but I felt towards the end of his speech that maybe there was some hope of conversion. Then I come to the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, of whom I felt there was no hope of conversion. I had to put a question mark of indecision and doubt against the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter. It was extraordinarily interesting to find the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, trying hard to persuade their colleagues who were against entry into Europe and doing so most persuasively, as also did the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester.
I think, therefore, that those who have spoken in favour of entry will forgive me if to-night I try to deal with some of the questions that have been raised in

389
this House by those who still doubt the wisdom of Britain joining Continental Europe. It is perfectly true that this House at any rate is far ahead of public opinion on this issue; but I believe that public opinion is changing and that by the time we come to take the vote in Parliament in October, we may well find a majority in the country in favour of entry into Europe. There are some who feel that for Britain to join the E.E.C. is an unnatural alliance. This could not have been more clearly put than by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who said,"Let us go it alone. Let us have the guts to do so." But one could put it the other way round:"Let us have the guts to enter Europe ". I thought that this point of view was brilliantly put by the noble Lord, Lord Stokes. I thought that his speech was devastating, and he was ably supported by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, and by my noble friend Lord Alport. They believe that the problems of this country have been masked and that we need the wider opportunity for technological change, otherwise (in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stokes) we should be in a permanent industrial recession.
There are also those of great experience in the Commonwealth who, understanding its changing character and needs, now accept the logic of Britain as a partner in Europe. Inevitably, I thought, the noble Lords, Lord Redcliffe-Maud and Lord Garner, and my noble friends Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, Lord Hastings and Lord Trevelyan, spoke in this sense, because they have come to believe, whatever their experience has been within the Commonwealth, that if Britain enters Europe, we shall become a source of greater strength to all English-speaking peoples. There are also some in this House, and many more outside, who, in the words of one noble Lord as he described himself to me, are anxious Marketeers: those whose reason supports Britain's entry, but who, now that the time for decision cannot be put off, find their judgment clouded by anxiety. I would put it to noble Lords that it is not the economic questions that really trouble them most, but the most fundamental political question of them all, which is: If we join the European Community shall we be in a better position to prevent another European war? This is for
390
many, as was so clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, by far the most important reason for joining Europe.
Those of us who followed Sir Winston Churchill into the first European forums will never forget the force of feeling that bound together many men and women of different European stock, who wanted to try somehow to ensure that the terrible experiences of their generation would not be visited upon the next. For myself, at least, the memory of those days has not been dimmed by the economic problems that beset us on every hand. A major reason for founding the European Community was to achieve a lasting reconciliation between France and Germany, and to forge practical links between member States so that none would have an entirely separate economic base from which to start another war. Therefore, I submit to the House that an enlarged Community will make it even less likely that one single State could dominate the rest.
The second question that troubles many people poses almost a reversal of that situation. It is that Britain will tic herself into such a close alliance that she will be unable to take her own decisions. This, I thought, was particularly brought to our attention by the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary and my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. I thought that the question of sovereignty was admirably dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has given us a very clear account of the meaning of "sovereignty", and the extent of our powers to govern ourselves in the future; and when the Lord Chancellor speaks, that is where I fear to tread. Therefore I will leave the question of sovereignty to be read in Hansard to-morrow.
Many still question whether we shall still have the same power of decision in domestic affairs. Several noble Lords asked, in particular, whether I could deal with the subject of regional policies—notably the noble Lords, Lord Beswick, Lord Chalfont, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and yesterday my noble friend Lord Polwarth. Of course, coming as I do from Scotland, this is of enormous importance to us. Many noble Lords have explained, I thought most clearly, why the Government expect the overall results of entry

391
into the Community to give a real stimulus to the United Kingdom economy. Notable among those noble Lords, were the noble Lord, Lord Belhaven and Stenton, and my noble friends Lord Watkinson and Lord Caldecote. They said that a larger home market should lead to greater efficiency, higher real wages and a larger national product, and therefore we should obviously have far more resources to strengthen regional policies, provided of course we are all prepared to work.
Regional policy in the Common Market is regarded primarily as a matter for individual member States, although efforts are being made to try and evolve a common policy. As paragraph 76 of the White Paper explains, it was agreed during recent negotiations that between the signature of the Treaty of Accession and its entry into force, there will be consultation between ourselves and the Community about any decisions they take to ensure that our interests are taken into account.
Of course the nature of the regional problem must differ very much from one country to another, but all members attach as much importance to regional policy as the United Kingdom and have used many of the same measures to tackle them as we have ourselves. For example, two countries in the Six already employ policies similar to our industrial development policy. France uses them in the Paris and Lyons regions. Italy employs a type of I.D.C. policy for all public enterprise, and this month is considering extending such controls to private industry. We have tried to compare the value of various regional incentives from one countary to another, but so far have found this impossible. Yet it seems quite clear that the scale of British expenditure on regional policy is not out of line with any of the standards of the Six. Nor is the proportion of the country accorded development area status exceptional. There is no bar to carrying on a strong and effective regional policy for the United Kingdom.
My Lords, various noble Lords from Scotland spoke yesterday, and lastly today the noble Earl, Lord Perth. I hope the House will forgive me if I say something about Scotland, because it will be apparent how concerned we are about the
392
situation North of the Border. We feel that Scotland may in some respects have more to gain from entry than the rest of the United Kingdom. This is already the view of the Scottish C.B.I. The real problem of the Scottish economy is that the level of investment has been too low both to employ those now out of work and to give an adequate rate of growth. Because of its industrial structure, Scotland really needs a higher ratio of investment than the national economy as a whole, and she has both the need and the capacity to grow at a more rapid pace than that which is set for the United Kingdom as a whole. This has been the main aim of regional policy, but it is possible that membership of the Common Market could be of great assistance allied to recent fiscal measures.
The more Scotland becomes involved in Europe, the more the climate for investment and expansion would be determined by European conditions rather than by what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland could be very attractive to foreign investors. For instance, Germany, which has a high level of investment and a great shortage of labour, might well be encouraged to export capital to Scotland, in the same way that German firms have moved into Flanders in the last ten years and provided an enormous stimulus for the Belgian economy; and as was recognised by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, the effect of American investment could also make an appreciative difference. The big flow of American investment to Scotland in the late forties and early fifties occurred because at that time tariff barriers were very high, and Scotland was the right place for an American firm wishing to get inside the Commonwealth and sterling area system. This attraction, of course, is now much less; but membership of the E.E.C. will give Scotland advantages again, particularly as American industry seems to prefer to operate in an English-speaking environment.
I would agree with noble Lords who have said that many firms are at this moment hesitating about their investment until the final decision is taken. I only hope that management will take the responsibility now of preparing plans so that they are not left behind if and when we enter Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, asked me in particular

393
about something which is of great concern to this House; namely, the question of food prices. I must say I thought he was answered far better than I could have answered by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, my noble friend Lord Macpherson of Drumochter and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. This they did in great detail from their own personal experience.
I would just remind the House that paragraph 88 of the White Paper which estimates that the rise in the cost of food—and I only take food—for about six years which will amount in total to 15 per cent. is based on very careful calculations. People often try to compare prices for different types of food, but I suggest that this is misleading, as the noble Lords to whom I have referred have said so clearly. In the first place, this is because differences in the quality of the product, and event the definition not to speak of taste or the skill with which a household is managed, make real comparisons almost impossible. Secondly, it ignores the important effect on prices of different systems of marketing, processing and distribution—and I would claim that ours is one of the most efficient systems anywhere.
Thirdly, in most E.E.C. countries value added tax, at varying rates, is applied to food. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, asked me about V.A.T., as did the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire; and we have stated that in the United Kingdom food will not be subject to V.A.T., except possibly for a few luxury items which are subject to purchase tax to-day. The 1970 White Paper estimated that food prices would rise by more than our estimate of 15 per cent. over six years: it stated that they would rise between 18 and 26 per cent. But since then, as noble Lords have pointed out, there have been rising world prices for a number of commodities, and this fact, allied to inflation, has reduced the gap between our retail prices and those of the E.E.C. In fact, the United Kingdom prices have risen in the last few years more than those within the Community. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in particular spoke of great business opportunities and prospects for growth which will result from entry, and this of course will have a profound effect upon purchasing power. The noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, asked, with I thought great
394
feeling, about those who live on national pensions and related benefits; and I would just assure him once again that the Secretary of State for Social Services has made it absolutely clear that there will be regular reviews every two years.
Several noble Lords spoke about the Common Agricultural Policy, and the House will recall that both the last Government and this one had to accent that as part of the price of entry—it was not a negotiable subject. But the White Paper explains how we can enter into this arrangement with the minimum disruption; and the noble Lord, Lord Walston, drew our attention to the fact that the National Farmers' Union have concluded that entry to the E.E.C. on the terms given in this White Paper should provide farmers with a real chance to increase their production and their incomes. I understand that they consider that the agricultural community's position would inevitably be at risk if we did not join the Community. I think it is certainly true that we have one of the most efficient farming industries in Western Europe: it is fully competitive and well able to adjust itself to change. There are still some agricultural problems, but none that common sense cannot surmount. For instance, the European communities have problems of hill farming of their own. We have, too, and we have made them so well aware of cur own that it is known as "le problème Ecossais". Therefore, just as in regional policy, we shall he able to continue to support our hill farmers.
There are, of course, still problems that have not yet been settled, such as the future of our fisheries, which is of great importance to this country. But as that was dealt with in great detail last night by my noble friend Lord Lothian, I do not propose to go further into it now. There are some who say that because everything is not settled, and because exact figures of growth and cost are not set down in this White Paper, somehow the decision on entry must be postponed, or even rejected. But, my Lords, we cannot guarantee our rate of growth; or foresee how we shall all behave between now and the 1980s. We have had most valuable support from those of all Parties, and of some who believe that the terms negotiated to date are the best that any Government could hope to achieve.

395
There is one other doubt to which I should like to refer tonight. There are some who fear that Britain's interests will be limited to Europe and that our horizons will contract. But the Six have wide overseas connections, a generous record of aid to developing countries, and strong trade with the rest of the world. An enlarged Community will in fact become the world's largest trading area. There are 18 African States associated with the Community under the Yaoundé Agreement. If we join, 20 independent Commonwealth countries will have the offer of association or a trading agreement. So will all our dependent territories, except Gibraltar and Hong Kong. Other countries which have association agreements are Greece, Turkey, Spain, Israel, Tunisia, Morocco, Cyprus and Malta. Therefore I submit that membership of Western Europe will give us once again the power to shape events that the young will surely welcome.
My Lords, geography decrees that we are European. History proves that we can never be indifferent to events across the English Channel. As a small vulnerable island, over-populated, importing half our raw materials, and a third of our food, we have survived only because—perhaps more than any other people—we have lived in the wider world. This has been our strength, and must always be our strength. I submit that we have a great deal to give to Europe. We have a long political experience which can surely bring judgment to helping solve the immense problems that will always confront the talented, sophisticated, and volatile returns of the European Continent. In return, we believe that we shall receive not only the economic advantages of which so many speak, but, above all maybe, the lasting treasure—that of Europe at peace within herself.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

  OIL POLLUTION: RECOVERY OF CLEARANCE COST
  OIL POLLUTION: RECOVERY OF CLEARANCE COST
  AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS OVER KENSINGTON
  AIRCRAFT FLIGHTS OVER KENSINGTON
  DRUG SEARCHES IN CAMBRIDGE AND OXFORD
  DRUG SEARCHES IN CAMBRIDGE AND OXFORD