Sitting of 17 June 1971

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

DEATH OF A MEMBER
Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of James Eugene MacColl, Esquire, Member for Widnes and I desire, on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BILL
  As amended, to be considered upon Monday next at Seven o'clock.
SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  TEESIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS)(No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Bills read a Second time and committed.
BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.
PETITION

  Immigration Bill
  Mr. G. R. Strauss: I desire to present to the honourable the Commons of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled the humble
  612
  Petition of residents of Lambeth and surrounding areas, which showeth that
  "We the undersigned condemn the Immigration Bill on the grounds of its tendency in respect of certain provisions contained therein, to be racialist, discriminatory and unjust, detrimental to civil liberties and seriously damaging to community relations.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Immigration Bill be withdrawn.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
  This Petition is signed by over 2,000 people, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) and Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) and the Bishop of Southwark.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    Central London Properties
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Minister of State for Defence when his Department will complete its study of its central London properties with a view to their redevelopment; and whether he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): It is hoped that the study will be completed within the next twelve months. I shall inform my hon. Friend of the results of the study when they are known.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Department's determination to carry this study through for such a length of time is causing great hardship and concern in the City of Westminster, since it means that the Ministry of Defence site in Longmoore Street cannot be considered for a public baths and that houses in other parts of the site will have to be taken over by compulsory purchase, with all the human suffering and disagreeable consequences which that entails? Could he not make a special exception for this site, or hurry up his survey?
    Lord Balniel: I fully appreciate the sense of urgency which my hon. Friend expresses in the interests of his constituents, but this is a comprehensive

    613
    study. Until the general study has been completed, it will not be known whether this site is required for units which are unable to find accommodation elsewhere.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a valuable site is being wasted at the Duke of York's in Chelsea and that I have three barracks in my constituency, at Minet Road, Flodden Road and King's Avenue which are not required for the defence of the Brixton division?
    Lord Balniel: All of which emphasises the importance of a comprehensive, thorough and worth-while study being taken in this matter.
    Mr. John Morris: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, on 1st December, 1969, I announced the movement of 1,500 Army posts to Cardiff, and that the building would be erected between 1971 and 1974? Are these proposals still going ahead? Is there any change in them? Would the hon. Gentleman deny any suggestion that in any way there has been a slowing down of this proposal?
    Lord Balniel: I am afraid that I do not recall that statement, but the Question refers to Longmoore Street in London. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question about Cardiff, I will certainly try to answer it.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of British troops in the Gulf.
    Lord Balniel: There has been no change in our policy for the future of British troops in the Gulf since I answered a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 11th March.—[ol. 813, c. 147.]
    Mr. Wall: Is the rundown planned by the Labour Government continuing, but will the options to retain troops either in support of the union or bilaterally still remain open to Her Majesty's Government?
    Lord Balniel: The proposal which has been put forward by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is to make troops available in a training and liaison capacity to a union of territories in that area, if that can be formed, and our
    614
    policy is, in fact, the creation of a union. It is our duty to press ahead with this as fast as possible.
    Mr. George Thomson: Will the Minister come clean with the House about the Government's intentions regarding withdrawal and say whether the run-down is at present taking place? Has there been a net reduction in the number of troops in the Gulf in the last six months, and is this reduction going on?
    Lord Balniel: It would be wrong for me to give figures about the exact deployment of troops. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall keep adequate military forces in the area to fulfil our commitments while we are responsible for them.

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will publish details of arms, ammunition and explosive equipment captured in Northern Ireland as a result of searches or otherwise; and what are the sources from which they are believed to have been obtained.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): Between 1st January, 1970, and 31st May, 1971, 12 machine guns, 329 other guns, over 80,000 rounds of ammunition and over 1,000 lbs of gelignite, together with miscellaneous other items, have been found in searches by the security forces. It is not the practice to reveal the results of investigation into the sources from which they may have been supplied.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a fact that gelignite is coming freely across the border carried on the person of individuals simply because there is no effective surveillance of the border? Is this not a rather farcical situation from the security point of view, and will the Ministry of Defence please give consideration to more effective military precautions being taken on the border between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: There is constant patrolling of the border and the checking of vehicles to counter the possibility of smuggling arms and explosives. I assure

    615
    my hon. Friend that this matter will be kept under constant review.
    Mr. Kaufman: Has there been any progress in tracing the murderers of the three young Scottish soldiers? Is the Under-Secretary aware of the great concern that is felt in Northern Ireland, particularly among the minority community, that the perpetrators of this filthy crime should be found as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: I share the hon. Gentleman's concern and if he will table a Question on the subject I will do my best to answer it.
    Mr. Stratton Mills: Will priority be given to ensuring that Scotland Yard and the security forces do everything they can to track down the sources of arms coming into Northern Ireland from England and elsewhere?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence what new forms of working together in defence will need to be developed if the European Economic Community is enlarged by Great Britain joining.
    Mr. Moateasked the Minister of State for Defence what strategic defence considerations would arise if Great Britain were to join the European Economic Community.
    Lord Balniel: The European Economic Community has no defence responsibilities. These are, and will remain, the concern of N.A.T.O. But United Kingdom membership of the Community would, we believe, give added impetus to European co-operation in defence matters.
    Mr. Allaun: As the words in the Question were used by the Minister on 11th March, may I ask him for an assurance that there will be no new nuclear collaboration inside or outside N.A.T.O.? Will he repudiate the proposal made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster yesterday in Paris that there should be nuclear links between French and British forces? Is the noble Lord aware that this would inevitably mean a spread of
    616
    the bomb and knowledge of nuclear methods beyond France to Germany, which would be catastrophic?
    Lord Balniel: The Prime Minister made it perfectly clear, following his discussions with President Pompidou, that there had been no Anglo-French nuclear arrangements discussed as part of our negotiations for entry into E.E.C. or, indeed, in any other context. However, I believe it would be wrong to rule out the possibility of some collaboration some day—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]—but this is not at the moment under discussion.
    Mr. Moate: As France does not even participate in our main defensive alliance, which is N.A.T.O., may I ask my noble Friend to confirm that any question of an enlarged Community contributing to the defence of Europe is purely speculative—or is France proposing to rejoin N.A.T.O. as a gesture towards greater European unity?
    Lord Balniel: I know of no such proposal. Co-operation in nuclear matters with France must inevitably depend on our establishing a greater identity of understanding in defence matters, nuclear matters in particular, than now exists between the two countries.
    Mr. George Thomson: While strongly supporting greater defence co-operation among the European members of N.A.T.O., as initiated by my right hon. Friend when he was Foreign Secretary, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that his final speculative words have caused considerable distress, at any rate on this side of the House? May we have two unequivocal assurances—first, that the Government stand firmly behind the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty; and, secondly, that no nuclear deals with France are or will be contemplated outside the framework of N.A.T.O.?
    Lord Balniel: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no proposal before either of the countries which is outside the framework of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. However, both France and this country possess nuclear weapons and I believe that, in the long term, it would be wrong for me to rule out the possibility of some co-operation

    617
    between the two nuclear Powers of Europe.
    Mr. Allaun: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Changi Base, Singapore
    Mr. Boothasked the Minister of State for Defence on what terms Changi base at Singapore is to be made available to the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): Changi will be handed over to the Singapore Government when it is no longer required by the Royal Air Force, and any arrangement with the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation is a matter for that Government.
    Mr. Booth: Has any understanding been reached between the British Government and the Government of the U.S.A. regarding the future use of this base by U.S. military aircraft? Were the Government aware of the Lockheed Aircraft Corporation's interest in it before they discussed with the Singapore Government the handing over of this base?
    Mr. Lambton: What happens to the air base after we hand it over is a matter for the Singapore Government.

    Singapore (British Troops)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of British troops now in Singapore.
    Lord Balniel: Members of the three Services, including Gurkhas and locally enlisted forces, stationed in Singapore on 1st June, 1971, numbered about 16,000. This figure includes personnel serving at sea.
    Mr. Dalyell: With a presence like this in Singapore, are we as a country not in a position to talk to Lee Kwan Yew seriously about the deep feelings among many people in this country over his internal policies towards political prisoners, with a possible view to withdrawal?
    Lord Balniel: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that this falls outside the remit
    618
    of my Departmental responsibilities. I will, however, call the point to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.

    V.T.O.L. Aircraft (Research)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Minister of State for Defence what research programmes are currently being carried out by the Short SCI experimental vertical take-off aircraft; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): A two-year research programme has recently begun on V.T.O.L. flight control systems designed to ease the pilot's task. It is too early to report on results.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does this comparatively small aircarft have the capability of evaluating vertical take-off procedures for large military transport aircraft of the kind which we should be thinking about developing, if only as logistic support for the Harrier?
    Mr. Gilmour: Experience gained with the SCI has conributed to the process of widening the operational knowledge of V.T.O.L. aircraft. In the longer term, the results could contribute to the evaluation and design of civil V.S.T.O.L. aircraft.

    France (Nuclear Collaboration)
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of State for Defence what form of working together with France he is intending to seek in the sphere of nuclear defence forces.
    Lord Balniel: I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) on 11th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 564–5.]
    Mr. Deakins: Is it the Government's view that any sharing of information about, or the production or control of, nuclear weapons, even within the context of a West European Community, would be a breach of both the spirit and letter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
    Lord Balniel: That calls for a legal interpretation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which I am reluctant to give off the cuff. I have explained that co-operation between the French and British Governments in nuclear matters depends on a

    619
    closer understanding of defence objectives, and this does not exist now in this sphere.
    Mr. Marten: In the light of that reply, does the speech on defence yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster represent Government policy?
    Lord Balniel: Yes, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend was explaining that entry into the European Economic Community will inevitably strengthen European unity, and a stronger European unity will lead to a greater defence strength.
    Mr. George Thomson: Is the Minister aware that Press reports of his right hon. and learned Friend's speech have caused about as much concern as some of his statements from the Dispatch Box now? Will he place a copy of the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy in the Library so that we may have an opportunity to study it?
    Lord Balniel: I am sure that that can easily be arranged.
    Mr. Longden: Have not those who have opposed closer nuclear co-operation between allies an added duty to support the strengthening of conventional defence forces?
    Lord Balniel: This is almost the inevitable, logical conclusion to draw from some of the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite.
    Mr. Paget: Is not the noble Lord being a little naive in this matter? He knows perfectly well that the Prime Minister is on record as having stated his strong support for Anglo-French nuclear co-operation, and that the French have put forward, as one of the main arguments for accepting Britain, that this new co-operation should act as a substitute for the Americans in Europe. In view of the record of France as an ally, both to the Czechoslovaks and ourselves, does not the noble Lord think that that is a bit rash?
    Lord Balniel: If I recollect aright, some time ago in a most thoughtful lecture my right hon. Friend was talking about very long-term collaboration within Europe on nuclear matters. He has made it clear that in his discussions with the
    620
    French Government the question of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation is not an issue during the E.E.C. negotiations.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that my hon. Friends and I will seek an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Adjournment.

    Air /Sea Rescue Helicopters
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence when he hopes to replace the Whirlwind air/sea rescue helicopters in service with No. 18 (Maritime Group), Strike Command, Royal Air Force.
    Mr. Lambton: I have nothing yet to add to the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 28th January.—[Vol. 810, c. 177.]
    Mr. Wilkinson: As my hon. Friend says that he has nothing yet to add, may I infer that hopeful news is coming? The "Sea King" is an aircraft of immense potential for anti-submarine work. If we had a sale for air/sea rescue, that would have a valuable effect on its overseas sales potential. This is an outstanding aeroplane and the Royal Air Force needs it for long-range air/sea rescue.
    Mr. Lambton: My hon. Friend should read nothing into my reply except what I said.

    Ulster Defence Regiment
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will review the method of payment to the Ulster Defence Regiment so that members receive greater recognition for long spells on duty within any 24-hour period.
    Mr. G. Johnson Smith: No, Sir. Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment receive a full day's pay at Regular Army rates for any period of duty from eight to 24 hours.
    A member of the Regular Army in Northern Ireland receives the same pay irrespective of the nature and duration of the duties he performs within any period of 24 hours. It would be inequitable—and I hope my hon. Friend will agree—to pay more to a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment.

    Beira Patrol
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of State for Defence what action officers commanding Her Majesty's ships on the Beira Patrol are instructed by him to take in the event of their instructions being ignored by merchant ships under foreign flags; and in what circumstances these officers have authority to open fire.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): As my right hon. Friend will understand, it is not the practice to give details of the instructions issued to officers commanding Her Majesty's ships.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the light of my hon. Friend's statement three weeks ago that we were required by the United Nations resolution to maintain this patrol, can he at least tell the House whether his interpretation of that requirement also involves the use of force if the blockade is run?
    Mr. Kirk: I made it quite plain to my right hon. Friend on that occasion that interpretation rests with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has already stated to the House that Her Majesty's Government consider that they are pledged to conform to the resolution.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the only firing which has taken place against merchant shipping in recent times has been the piratical attack on the tanker "Coral Sea" last week? Will he state the Government's unqualified condemnation of that attack and others like it?
    Mr. Kirk: That is another question.

    Weather Forecasts
    Mr. David Stoddartasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he would explain the inaccurate 30-day weather forecast for June and consider the desirability of discontinuing such forecasts in the future.
    Mr. Lambton: Thirty-day forecasts are based on the study of past weather patterns, and they make no claim to infallibility. There is no fixed pattern of weather repetition, which is why these forecasts are sometimes wrong, but re-
    622
    search is continuing. Over the past five years about 80 per cent. of the forecasts have shown moderate or good agreement with subsequent weather and I do not propose to discontinue their issue.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is the Minister aware that that answer will be received with great hilarity throughout the country? We knew that the present Government were capable of inducing acute economic depression, but we did not expect that that would be accompanied by acute climatic depression. Will the Minister not reconsider his answer? Does not he realise that these erroneous 30-day forecasts cause a great deal of inconvenience and bring the Meteorological Office into disrepute? Would it not be better, therefore, if the money spent on 30-day forecasts were used to achieve more accurate short-term forecasts?
    Mr. Lambton: As I said, all that the 30-day forecasts are is a general idea of what the weather is likely to be. They are certainly not infallible, and anyone who made his plans by them would be a rather rash person.
    Mr. John Hall: Would my hon. Friend agree that we should give credit where credit is due and that the most recent 30-day forecast, which forecasts periods of dry weather interspersed with showers, some heavy, is almost bound to be right?
    Mr. Lambton: The particular difficulty this month is finding out exactly where credit is due.
    Mr. George Thomson: Would the Minister say whether his right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary have sought a 30-day forecast from the Meteorological Office whether we are to have a long hot summer?

  B.A.O.R.
  Mr. Matherasked the Minister of State for Defence what is the maximum number of major units, normally stationed in the British Army of the Rhine, which have been on temporary duty in Northern Ireland at the same time.
  Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Four, Sir.
  Mr. Mather: Can my hon. Friend say at what period this maximum effort took place, how many periods there were

  623
  and what proportion of B.A.O.R. strength this represented?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: The first B.A.O.R. unit went to Northern Ireland in March, 1970. The figure rose to three in July, 1970, and has fluctuated since then. It dropped to one in March, 1971, and it returned to four this April. There are 13 major units, as my hon. Friend knows, in Northern Ireland, and there are four battalions from B.A.O.R. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are 52,000 men and women in B.A.O.R. It is a small proportion.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: While everybody gives credit to the British Army for the excellent way in which it has done its duty in Northern Ireland, could we be given an assurance that the Government are pursuing their social and economic aims in Northern Ireland? The more they do this, the less will be the need for further troops.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: That is a question for my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Chichester-Clark: On the use of these units and on patrolling, would my hon. Friend acquaint himself with the steps being taken on the other side of the border by the Irish Republic authorities to patrol and to prevent the explosives mentioned during an earlier Question from being brought into Northern Ireland—and the arms, and so on—in view of the further security considerations involved? Will he also realise that I would not expect any answer but "Yes"?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: That is an interesting question, but it should more properly be put to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
  Sir F. Macleanasked the Minister of State for Defence how many Army personnel, including those on temporary duty in Northern Ireland, are now stationed in the British Army of the Rhine, and how these figures compare with the numbers on 1st January, 1969.
  Mr. G. Johnson Smith: On 1st June, 1971 there were 53,716 Army personnel, including those on temporary duty in Northern Ireland, stationed in the British Army of the Rhine. On 1st January, 1969 there were 52,796.
  Sir F. Maclean: These figures are satisfactory as far as they go, but is my hon. Friend bearing in mind the probability of substantial American troop withdrawals from Europe and the consequent ever-greater importance of our keeping up our conventional strength there?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: Yes, Sir. We are very well aware of this. If recruiting continues to go well, the strength of the Rhine Army is forecast to reach 55,000 by April, 1972; and that is our obligation.
  Mr. Richard: Did the figure of 52,796 that the Minister quoted include 6 Brigade? If the figure did include 6 Brigade, which was the basis upon which all the figures were given by the previous Administration, I think it was a little high.
  Mr. Johnson Smith: It does include 6 Brigade.
  Mr. Matherasked the Minister of State for Defence how many major units stationed in the British Army of the Rhine have served on short tours in Northern Ireland; and how many of them have served more than one tour there.
  Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Eleven up to date. No unit has so far served more than one emergency tour from British Army of the Rhine.
  Mr. Mather: To what extent does this interfere with the training side of these units stationed in B.A.O.R.?
  Mr. Johnson Smith: It is not my understanding that it has interfered in any serious way with the training of B.A.O.R. Obviously for a unit to go to Northern Ireland takes it away from its normal duties. To that extent I suppose that it can be said that there has been interference. My hon. Friend should not draw from my answer any conclusion which leads him to think that we are alarmed.

  B.A.O.R.

    Royal Marines (Junior Ratings)
    Mr. Wallasked the Minister of State for Defence how many junior ratings in the Royal Marines opted out of the service in the first six months service, over a convenient period of time; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Kirk: In the 12 months from 1st July, 1969 to 30th June, 1970 3,313 juniors were recruited into the Royal Navy. Of these, 865—that is, 26·1 per cent.—opted out during their first six months service.
    During the same period 385 junior Marines were recruited. Of these, 129—that is, 33·5 per cent.—opted out during their first six months service.
    More recent figures suggest that the rate of wastage in junior Marines may be falling.
    Mr. Wall: How many young men took up the option of leaving the Service after 12 weeks training? Will my hon. Friend consider making this voluntary break period at the end of training rather than in the middle?
    Mr. Kirk: About half in both cases left at the end of the first break point. Obviously this is not a satisfactory situation. We are looking at various ways in which we could alleviate this. It will be impossible to assess the position finally until we know the results of the Donaldson recommendations as they work their way through into recruiting. There are other things which we might be able to do.

    Brunei
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the number of troops now in Brunei, under the command of his Department.
    Mr. G. Johnson Smith: A battalion of the Gurkha Rifles, with a small garrison staff, established at a total of about 1,000 officers and men will remain stationed in Brunei during 1971–72.
    Mr. Dalyell: What instructions are given to the Gurkhas in the event of internal troubles?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: The details of the amendments to the 1959 Agreement must await a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. That statement will come later this year.

    R.A.F. Jet Trainer
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking
    626
    to ensure that the new jet trainer for the Royal Air Force will have overseas sales potential.
    Mr. Ian Gilmour: In making their proposals to meet this requirement, the British Aircraft Corporation and Hawker Siddeley Aviation were asked to take account of export prospects.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is welcome news, because too often in the past aircraft manufacturers have had slavishly to follow the operational requirement of the Royal Air Force and valuable overseas sales potential is lost? In this case there could well be a very susbtantial market indeed. Therefore, will my hon. Friend ensure that this aeroplane has both an effective weapons capability and a range of alternate engine fits which will make it an attractive proposition for overseas buyers?
    Mr. Gilmour: The importance of exports is recognised. Export potential is only one of many factors which must be considered in reaching a decision on equipment for the Royal Air Force.
    Mr. George Thomson: On the question of overseas arms sales, when Mr. Botha, the Defence Secretary of South Africa, visited the Secretary of State for Defence recently, did he show any interest in jet trainers? In which other arms did he show interest?
    Mr. Gilmour: That is a totally different question.

    Persian Gulf
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make an official visit to Her Majesty's forces in the Gulf, and in the Mozambique Channel.
    Lord Balniel: I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would not such a visit provide for my hon. Friend an interesting contrast between British troops doing a very good job and British troops who are unfortunately detained on a futile farce? Will my hon. Friend assure me that the withdrawal of British forces from the Gulf will not depend upon a timetable but will depend upon the maintenance of peace, security and British interests in the Gulf?
    Lord Balniel: I can assure my hon. Friend that the maintenance of services in that area will be maintained at a level commensurate with our commitments. We are engaged upon the long-term objective of ensuring peace and stability in the area. It is that question which is being discussed at this very moment.
    Mr. George Thomson: Can the noble Lord do something to dissuade the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and hon. Members opposite who feel like him from continually undermining the morale of the Royal Navy on an operation which it performs with great efficiency and effectiveness?
    Lord Balniel: That question coming from an hon. Member opposite about maintaining the morale of the Navy almost beggars description. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has lowered the morale of the Navy one iota. My hon. Friend has pointed to the fact that it is undertaking a responsibility which it has been called on to perform by the United Nations. It will continue to do so until such time as an acceptable negotiated conclusion has been reached to this problem.
    Captain W. Elliot: Can my noble Friend confirm that the Beira Patrol was designed in order to stop oil and petrol from reaching Rhodesia? What is the supply position of petrol in Rhodesia at present? Is my noble Friend aware that petrol is cheaper there than it is in Britain?
    Lord Balniel: I am aware of that fact and that petrol rationing has been abolished in Rhodesia. This is surely a very small issue compared with the far greater and more important issue of achieving a negotiated settlement between Rhodesia and Britain. All must be subordinated to that wider objective.

    Army Officers (Pre-University Commissions)
    Sir F. Macleanasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the scheme whereby young men waiting to go up to university are commissioned into the Army in the interim period to gain experience of service in the armed forces.
    Mr. G. Johnson Smith: In February this year 24 young men were commissioned as second lieutenants for service in the Army for a few months before they go up to their universities. They are employed in various regiments and corps in this country and Germany on worthwhile tasks involving leadership and responsibility. They have settled down extremely well. We are considering expanding the scheme next year.
    Sir F. Maclean: Are there any indications that any of these young men will make the Army their career?
    Mr. Johnson Smith: Some are considering applying for university cadetships. which would benefit the Army.

    University Royal Naval Units
    Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will take steps to set up more University Royal Naval Units similar to the unit now existing at Aberdeen University.
    Mr. Kirk: Yes, Sir. We plan to establish a unit at the University of Liverpool shortly, and negotiations are proceeding with the Universities of Glasgow and Southampton to set up units there by next January.
    Mr. Baker: Will my hon. Friend accept from me that that is a very satisfactory answer? What success has there been at Aberdeen University? Will the extension oft his scheme make an improvement in the recruitment of officers to the Royal Navy?
    Mr. Kirk: We very much hope that it will. So far at Aberdeen we have two undergraduates holding university cadet-ships; there is an application being considered from a further cadet and one application for graduate entry has been received this year. This is not a bad result in view of the size of the unit.

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    James Hanratty
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now announce the result of the investigation by his Department of the new facts and allegations in the case of James Hanratty; and whether he will now set up a public inquiry.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): My right hon. Friend is not yet ready to announce his conclusions.
    Mr. Whitehead: I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. Early Day Motion No. 537 or the two sympathetic Amendments thereto have been signed by 65 hon. Members. There will be widespread disappointment on both sides of the House if there is not an early announcement of a full inquiry into the Hanratty case.
    Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make an announcement as soon as possible. There are substantial matters to be considered and my right hon. Friend must have a little more time before he can reach his decision.
    Sir E. Bullus: On behalf of my constituent Mr. Hanratty may I ask my hon. and learned Friend when the Secretary of State is likely to announce that there will be an inquiry and whether it will be before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not think that I can go further than my answer that my right hon. Friend is not yet ready to announce his conclusions. I hope that he will be able to do so before the Summer Recess, but it would be wrong to anticipate the result of those conclusions until they are reached.
    Mr. Loughlin: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that there are a good number of hon. Members on both sides who are very concerned about the delay that has occurred? I appreciate the need for the Secretary of State to make the most thorough investigations. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman convey to the Secretary of State that hon. Members would like him to speed up the investigations?
    Mr. Carlisle: I cannot accept that there has been delay. The book was published only recently. It is over 400 pages long and raises many individual issues. A mass of other papers has accumulated over the years. I will convey to my right hon. Friend the feeling of the House that his decision should be given as soon as possible.
    Mr. Steel: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that if Early Day Motion No. 537 had not, unfortunately, been worded in such a way as to require hon. Members to state a firm opinion, it would have attracted many more than 65 signatures and that there is genuine disquiet among many more hon. Members than those who have signed that Motion?
    Mr. Carlisle: That must be a matter of individual opinion. I accept that there is concern in the House that the Home Secretary should reach a conclusion as soon as possible and announce it to the House. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that my right hon. Friend will look at this matter with the same care as it has received in the past from previous Secretaries of State.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Mineworkers (South Yorkshire)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many mineworkers are unemployed in the South Yorkshire coalfield; and, of these, how many are 55 years of age and over.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith): At 10th May, 2,873 males who had last worked in the coalmining industry were registered as unemployed in the Yorkshire coalfield sub-region. A special quarterly return in March showed that of 1,634 colliery workers, unemployed in March, 1,593 were aged 55 years and over.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Under-Secretary examine this problem? Just over three years ago men were encouraged to leave the pits at age 55 when pits were closing and they received three years' benefit under the Labour Government's Act. Now those men are 58. In addition, there are men who were encouraged to retire from pits in close proximity which were kept open. Those men have been left out on a limb. Will the hon. Gentleman consult the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see whether more jobs can be brought to these areas to provide these men with work?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: There has been consultation. We are well aware of this very difficult problem. Although overall the number of unemployed miners in this

    631
    area has risen by only 47 in the past year, there is a difficult problem for the elderly miner. We shall do all we can to try to provide other work, but this is an area of comparatively high unemployment.
    Mr. Swain: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this problem does not affect only one area and that the situation is very serious in South Yorkshire, North Derbyshire and Mid-Derbyshire? North Derbyshire is not recognised as an intermediate area. Will he consult his right hon. Friend with a view to assisting the local authorities in that area to gain intermediate area status?
    Mr. Dudley Smith: That is another question. We are aware that there are difficulties for the older miner. This is why we do all we can to try to help over retraining and to place them in jobs outside mining.
    Mr. Milne: Will the Under-Secretary bear in mind, and advise his right hon. Friend and Ministers in other Departments, that it is essential in advertising jobs to stop limiting jobs to men under 55? Discrimination against those who accepted redundancy payments should be terminated forthwith.
    Mr. Dudley Smith: We always try to encourage all employers not to discriminate on grounds of age and urge that people should be judged on their merits and not on their age.

  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Nursery Classes
    Sir D. Walker-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when it is proposed to review the provisions of Circular 8/60 and promulgate new directions providing more effectively for the needs of nursery classes.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): My right hon. Friend's first priority is the improvement of primary schools for children of compulsory school age. Later she hopes to be able to turn to the needs of nursery education.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: I warmly endorse the first priority that my hon. Friend enunciated. Will he please see to it that
    632
    it is not much later before he comes to the second but also very important priority?
    Mr. van Straubenzee: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will want to respond as far as resources allow. I am aware of the special action which has been taken in the Hertfordshire local authority area, part of which is represented by my right hon. and learned Friend.

    BRITISH INVESTMENT IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
    Mr. Tugendhatasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to discuss with other Heads of Government the proposed scheme for insuring British overseas investment described in the White Paper, British Investment in Developing Countries.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I believe that this scheme will be generally welcomed in the developing countries, and I expect to discuss it with other Heads of Government as and when suitable opportunities arise.
    Mr. Tugendhat: Does my right hon. Friend agree that direct investment is often as useful as foreign aid in helping developing countries? What benefits does he expect to flow from the scheme?
    The Prime Minister: I agree that investment is as important as aid. I have always regarded it as part of aid and just as important as other forms of aid, such as technological aid. The benefit of the scheme is that it will encourage the private firms and the private investor to invest in the developing countries, which in turn is helpful to us as a country, because it is an indirect way of improving the balance of payments and securing orders for firms in this country to carry out investment in the developing world.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Prime Minister aware that while it might be desirable to increase certain kinds of private investment in developing countries, it is no substitute for reaching the official aid targets approved by the United Nations General Assembly last autumn?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman and I have had correspondence about this matter. We must agree

    633
    to differ, because he believes that we should accept the figure of 0·7 per cent. of G.N.P. as official aid and we have always taken the view that we would do our best to reach 1 per cent. by 1975, taking official and private aid together. I see no reason why we should say that that figure must come from official aid. What is important for the developing world, surely, is that it should get the total aid which it requires.

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr, Fellasked the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Heads of Government of countries whose Governments have made application to join the European Economic Community.
    The Prime Minister: I have had no such discussions recently, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster maintains regular contacts with Ministers in the Governments of Denmark, Norway and the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Eire the decision on whether to enter the Common Market is subject to a mandatory referendum; that in Denmark it was subject to a five-sixths majority, and is now, I believe, subject to a mandatory referendum; and that in Norway it is subject to a three-quarters majority in Parliament and now to an advisory referendum? Would it not be a compliment to the British people, who were not faced with the issue as a major issue at the last General Election, to hold an advisory referendum to see what their wishes are in the matter?
    The Prime Minister: I am aware of the position in the other three applicant countries which my hon. Friend described. But they have their own constitutional practices, and I think that I am right in saying that all three have written constitutions. As far as I am aware, this country has never used the referendum to decide major issues. We have our own parliamentary procedures, and as the head of the Government I propose to adhere to them.
    Mr. Grimond: Does the Prime Minister agree that those countries which are applicants to joint the E.E.C. have certain problems in common, such as regional development, transport, hill farming, fishing and so on, and that it would be valuable to have preliminary conversations with the other countries about the policies we should pursue if we were to join the Market?
    The Prime Minister: There have been continual conversations and discussions with those countries about the problems involved in the negotiations. I am not sure that we have as many in common as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The problem of agriculture in Denmark is quite different from that in Norway and Britain. Certainly, we have tried to keep in the closest touch with them on every aspect of the negotiations.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is odd that those people who do not like our taking over the practices at present followed in Europe on any other matter are very concerned to bring into this country the alien idea of a referendum?
    The Prime Minister: That thought had occurred to me, like the similar thought that those who say that they know least about the European Economic Community and the negotiations are the first to demand that they should express their personal views through a referendum.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Prime Minister's reply mean that he thinks that the last occasion on which the British people should have had a right to express themselves on the matter was the last General Election? If he is comparing practices in this country, will he compare the situation with the Parliament Bill in 1910, and the Reform Bill itself, when reference was made to the people of this country about such a major decision affecting their future?
    The Prime Minister: It is true that on previous occasions there have been General Elections upon specific issues. I was dealing with the question of a referendum. The hon. Gentleman's point is different. At the last General Election we sought a mandate to negotiate, and we said that we believed it right that if the proper arrangements could be made, Britain

    635
    should become a member of the E.E.C. If one enters into a negotiation as part of a policy stated at a General Election, one cannot commit oneself to the outcome before the negotiation is finished. That must be self-evident. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman wishes to argue that on every occasion when there is a negotiation by the Government there must be a General Election as soon as the negotiation is finished. That I cannot accept.
    Mr. Fell: On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Miss Lestorasked the Prime Minister what consultations he has now had with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers regarding the position of Commonwealth workers in this country and their eligibility for acceptance as community workers within the European Economic Community.
    The Prime Minister: We have consulted closely with Commonwealth Governments throughout the negotiations, but this issue is not one which they have raised with us.
    Miss Lestor: Is the Prime Minister aware that some of us are exceedingly concerned about the lack of information that is coming to this House about the position of Commonwealth workers in this country and that some of us have been trying to get an answer to this question for many months? When he is negotiating on this issue would he look into the situation in France whereby immigrant children in this country cannot join their colleagues on day trips to France because the arrangements which France makes for people in this country, born in Britain, to go to France, are not applied to children who were not born in Britain, so that at the moment Commonwealth children find it difficult to be accepted?
    The Prime Minister: On that point which the hon. Lady has brought to my notice, I am prepared to have inquiries made into this problem, which exists quite separately from any question of negotiations with the European Community. On the other matter, I am only too anxious that the fullest information should be given to the House as soon as
    636
    discussions on this point, which will clarify the situation, are completed. Then we shall be able to give the information.
    Mr. Orme: Is the Prime Minister aware that this issue of Commonwealth and British citizens and the movement of labour was raised in the House last night? Can he tell us what discussions about nationality are taking place with the Common Market countries? Is he aware that many people want more information about this issue of free movement of labour and want to know how it will affect coloured citizens in this country?
    The Prime Minister: I think that people wish to know not only how it affects immigrants who have come to this country—there is a difference between those who have British nationality as a result of having been here and those who have not yet qualified—but also about this as a general question. As soon as my right hon. and learned Friend is able to give the information, the House will have it.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On the question raised by the hon. Lady about a differentiation between children from British schools who go on trips abroad, is my right hon. Friend aware that this problem has been raised in the House before and that presumably inquiries were set in train before today? Will he put some steam behind the inquiries which he now says he will have made, because this is not a nice thing to happen to children in the same British school?
    The Prime Minister: I must make it clear that I understand that inquiries have been made into this but that decisions have not yet been reached.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is there not, inevitably, bound to be a citizenship problem in any discussions about entering the Common Market? In this respect, and in a wider respect, would it not be a good idea to have discussions with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers about citizenship as a whole in preparation for the end of the British Nationality Act, 1948, which is now well out of date?
    The Prime Minister: From his past Ministerial experience the hon. Member will know exactly how difficult a problem this is. It has been the general wish of the members of the Commonwealth

    637
    that it should not be discussed at a Commonwealth Conference as such. That, I think, was the experience of my predecessor, and it was certainly my own experience. What they would prefer is that if we have any proposals to make, we should carry on unilateral discussions with each of the members insofar as they are affected. Because of the complexity of this subject it has not yet been possible to do that.
    Mr. Callaghan: Are the Government to take the position with the E.E.C. that Commonwealth citizens who are nonpatrial will be free to leave this country and to work or live in Europe with their families? Is not that the essential point?
    The Prime Minister: I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is one of the important points being discussed at the moment by my right hon. and learned Friend.

    SECURITY
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement on the progress of the inquiry into security within Government Departments.
    The Prime Minister: Since the answer to this Question is somewhat lengthy I will, with permission, answer it at the end of Questions.

    PRIME MINISTER OF ITALY (VISIT)
    Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what subjects he will be discussing with the Italian Prime Minister on his forthcoming visit.
    The Prime Minister: Our discussions will of course be confidential, but I look forward to a wide-ranging review of world affairs, including the enlargement of the European Communities.
    Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend also be confirming the Anglo-Italian Declaration of April, 1969, whereby both our countries called for a democratically-elected Parliament for the enlarged Community? At the same time, will he express the sorrow of this country
    638
    at the re-emergence, apparently, of the Fascist Party in Italy?
    The Prime Minister: We have already confirmed the Declaration, which was arranged by our predecessors. It said that the Community should be based firmly on democratic institutions and that the European Parliament has a vital rôle to play. That was confirmed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. My hon. Friend referred to the internal Italian political situation. Since the war we have seen from time to time in various European countries the emergence of parties with which we would not be in sympathy. We have also seen that those parties have withered away again. I ask my right hon. Friend not to put too much emphasis on the result of one lot of local government elections.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Whatever is on the agenda, will the Prime Minister see that some time is spent in discussing the development and democratisation of the European Parliament, based on the discussions of two years ago?
    The Prime Minister: I am perfectly ready to do that if the Italian Prime Minister is prepared to do so. I think that the Italian Government have always taken the lead in the Community in putting emphasis on this point, particularly on direct election to the European Parliament, so it would not surprise me if the Italian Prime Minister wished to discuss the question of the European Parliament.

    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Prime Minister what plans he now has for a further official meeting with the President of France.
    The Prime Minister: None at present, Sir.
    Mr. Sillars: It is true that the Prime Minister's concern over veto on entry to the Common Market has now switched from the President of France to the very senior Conservative who wrote that interesting article in the Spectator on 12th June? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to hazard a public guess at the identity of the author?
    The Prime Minister: It may be amusing to the hon. Gentleman, but that question is pretty far removed from a further meeting with President Pompidou.
    Mr. John Mendelson: In the Prime Minister's discussions with President Pompidou, New Zealand was discussed in part at least, according to the Prime Minister's first report. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the report in today's Guardian that Sir Con O'Neill officially put forward a proposal in Brussels on behalf of the British delegation yesterday afternoon requiring only that figures should be given for New Zealand imports into this country for a transitional period and that there should be a reconsideration at the end of that period, but with no requirement that there should be, as we understood and were led to believe, a permanent arrangement to allow New Zealand to continue imports of food into this country after the United Kingdom enters the Community? Will the Prime Minister deny that statement or tell the House whether Sir Con O'Neill has been correctly reported?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot be expected to comment on all the reports about the progress of the negotiations which appear in the Press in this country, Europe, or America. As the matter is under negotiation and will be handled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in Luxembourg next week, the hon. Gentleman should await my right hon. and learned Friend's report on the question.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the French President that, in view of the cordial welcome which my right hon. Friend received when he went to Paris, an equally friendly welcome would be extended to the French President if he came to this country? Will he also make it clear to him that we should welcome the opportunity to hear how he will disport himself in the English language, following my right hon. Friend's excellent performance in French?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that if he were to come to this country the President of France would receive its customary warm welcome. The President expressed to me his regret that he did not consider that he was a fluent speaker of English.
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Prime Minister if he found an identity of view on arms sales to South Africa in his recent talks with President Pompidou.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to my statement of 24th May about my talks with President Pompidou.
    Dr. Gilbert: When the Prime Minister told the House that he found an identity of interest with the French President on all matters relating to problems facing us in different parts of the world, was he aware that France was still in breach of the United Nations resolution of 25th July last year forbidding the sale of armaments under licence to South Africa, that French armoured cars are still being manufactured under licence in South Africa, and that the French restriction on armaments sales does not extend to land-based armaments? May we have an assurance that there will be no change of British policy to bring us into line with French policy in this respect?
    The Prime Minister: What I said in my statement was that the President and I found an identity of view on the rôle which a united Europe can play in relation to the problems which face us in other parts of the world. I emphasised in particular that this was with the developing world. I did not say that on every issue of foreign policy which confronted our two countries we were of exactly the same view. The differences between ourselves and France on this question are well known. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will point out to some African members of the Commonwealth, who are so critical of us but who can at the same time improve their trade and arrangements with France, exactly what the position is.
    Mr. Walters: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only the most obscurantist opponent of any British foreign policy could fail to welcome the advance that took place in his conversations with President Pompidou, which not only removed obstacles to possible entry by Britain into the European Economic Community but also greatly improved relations with France?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said and I believe that, on reflection, the whole House would agree that it is good for

    641
    Europe—for both of our countries—that the relations between France and Britain should now be improved and put on to a better basis.
    Mr. George Thomson: Reverting to the question of arms sales to South Africa, can the right hon. Gentleman say what further request the Government have received from Mr. Botha, the South African Defence Secretary, when he met his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary the other day? What response have the Government made?
    The Prime Minister: The position over arms sales to South Africa remains exactly as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary described it in February.

SECURITY
The Prime Minister: With permission, I would like to reply to Question No. Q3.
I told the House on 11th May that allegations made that morning in an article in the Guardian were being investigated. So far as these allegations relate to possible criminal offences, police inquiries are still continuing, and I cannot comment upon them. But the Board of Inland Revenue has now established that in one case a tax afficial gave confidential information over the telephone to a person claiming, falsely, to be from another tax office. He failed to observe the strict Departmental instructions and has therefore been formally reprimanded.
Rules to combat dishonest telephone inquiries were already in force in the three Departments most at risk. They provide that, wherever an inquirer cannot be satisfactorily identified, he must be asked for a telephone number at which he can be rung back. This number is then checked before any information is given. In particular, the rules provide safeguards against the bogus inquirer from a telephone callbox. After reviewing these rules I immediately gave instructions that they should be introduced into all other Government Departments.
I have considered whether former civil servants should be forbidden to work for private inquiry firms. I have concluded that such a rule would be impossible to enforce. But someone employed in this way would be committing an offence under the Official Secrets Acts if he disclosed
642
confidential information acquired while in the Civil Service.
I have also reviewed the arrangements for safeguarding confidential commercial information. As a result fresh instructions are being issued to all Government Departments. This will lead to some tightening-up of existing arrangements, particularly for the most sensitive types of information.
If, after the police inquiries are completed, further action appears necessary it will of course be taken. But I believe that these measures provide the most immediate and practical means of safeguarding more effectively confidential information entrusted to Government Departments.
Mr. William Hamilton: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the fact that he would deal with the Question in this way. Can he say when he expects the full inquiry to be completed, as to both the police and the other departmental matters? Meanwhile, is he completely satisfied that all possible steps have been taken in all Departments to tighten up security consistent with the public interest?
The Prime Minister: I cannot yet say when the police inquiries will be completed. The departmental inquiries have not been carried further than the one case I mentioned in which disciplinary action has been taken. With the extension of these instructions to every Government Department, a more effective safeguard will be provided everywhere. We must recognise that confidential information rests primarily in three Government Departments, but I thought it right that all Departments should now pursue this procedure. I believe that that is the best step we can take. What we cannot, of course, guard against is the occasional failure of the human element. In the particular case I have mentioned the very strict instructions were not carried out to the full, and that resulted in this breach of confidence.
Mr. Onslow: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole House will be grateful to him for making that statement? Since the gravest threat of exploitation of the loopholes that have been revealed must come from enemies of the State as

643
a whole, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is yet in a position to say what progress has been made by the Foreign Secretary in his efforts to reduce the number of foreign spies operating from the sanctuary of Communist embassies in London?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will make a statement on this matter in due course.
Mr. Pardoe: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that in view of the virtual impossibility of stopping all instant replies by Government Departments to other Government Departments by telephone, to requests for individual information, the only safeguard for individual privacy is for all Government Departments to be conducted in such a way as to gather the least possible amount of information about individuals?
The Prime Minister: That may well be a principle upon which government should be based, but it would not avoid the accumulation of a vast amount of personal and confidential information about tax affairs, individual health, employment and so on. We have to deal with the problem of this information which is in these Departments. One could say that the main possible cause is failure of the human element. Deliberate misrepresentation on a telephone could be coped with 100 per cent. only if no business were carried on by telephone and if everything were done by correspondence. I have carefully considered that, but I believe that because it would so interfere with the contacts between the private citizen and Government Departments in what are very often, for the citizen, personally urgent matters, and because it would put such a burden on the Government machine, carrying on everything by correspondence, it is not practicable to adopt that attitude.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement on how the Government sees the arrangements for
644
parliamentary consideration of the question of British accession to the European Communities.
It may be helpful if I begin by setting out the stages which must be completed before we can become a member of the Communities. We have first to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. Second, Parliament should be invited to take a decision of principle on whether the arrangements so negotiated are satisfactory and whether we should proceed to join the Communities. If that be agreed, we have, third, to resolve the remaining issues in the negotiations. Fourth, a treaty of accession has to be prepared and signed. Fifth, legislation to give effect to that treaty has to be drafted, considered by Parliament and enacted. Finally, we and the other parties to the treaty have to deposit instruments of ratification of the treaty.
As to the first of these stages, we hope that it will be possible to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations by the end of this month. As soon as possible thereafter the Government will publish a White Paper setting out in detail the arrangements that have been agreed and the Government's conclusions on whether they constitute a satisfactory basis for joining the Communities.
The timing of subsequent stages depends upon striking a balance between a number of conflicting considerations. On the one hand, uncertainty will persist until Parliament has taken its decision. We owe it to our partners in the negotiations, to our fellow-applicants for membership, whose decisions will to some extent depend on ours, and to ourselves, to resolve this uncertainty as soon as we can. Moreover, the marketing and investment planning of British industry, and future planning in many other sectors of our national life, are vitally dependent on the decision. It is right that all concerned should know as soon as possible where they stand.
On the other hand, the Government have always acknowledged the need for the whole question to be fully considered and discussed by Parliament and by the public before Parliament is asked to take the decision of principle on it. Although it is true that the main arguments for and against our joining the Communities have been before the public since the first

645
application for membership ten years ago, it is right that we should take time to consider them in the light of the outcome of my right hon. and learned Friend's negotiations in Brussels and Luxembourg. The timetable which the Government propose therefore, is as follows.
The House will be invited to debate the White Paper before it rises for the Summer Recess. The detailed arrangements for this debate will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government envisage that it should be an expository and exploratory debate, on a Motion which does not invite the House to take the decision of principle at the end of this debate, though we must of course reserve our freedom of action in the event of any substantive Amendment to such a Motion.
Then, when Parliament meets again after the recess, there will be a second debate, at the conclusion of which the House will be asked to decide in principle whether Britain should join the European Communities.
In the meantime our delegation in Brussels will continue to negotiate on such issues as still remain outstanding. The aim will be to carry forward these negotiations and work on drafting a treaty of accession so that, if Parliament decides in the autumn that Britain should join the Communities, the treaty of accession can be signed by the end of this year.
This would allow the whole of 1972 to complete what would require to be done before our accession. In parliamentary terms, this would mean that Parliament would be invited to consider and to pass the consequential legislation, which would be substantial, by the end of the Session 1971–72. Thereafter the instrument of ratification of the treaty of accession would be deposited, in time for our accession to the Communities to be effective from 1st January, 1973.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Since the real issues before the House relate to the few weeks after the Summer Recess, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what he just said about the proposed arrangements will be welcomed, certainly by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House, and, I believe, by many right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side? Even if we may for a moment feel that it is a
646
pity the Prime Minister did not respond a fortnight ago and so avoid anxiety, we welcome the announcement. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. and right hon. Members have a right to express their views about the Government. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Although we may feel it is a pity that he did not respond earlier to the general view of the House on this, we welcome the fact that he has done so now.
Mr. Longden: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him if he is aware that there will be general satisfaction that sufficient time will be given for the whole issue to be put thoroughly before the country? It must be acknowledged, of course, that this has been the official policy of the Conservative Party for 10 years, and has been endorsed by innumerable Conservative conferences and by this House. Will my right hon. Friend carefully consider allowing, on this side of the House at any rate, a free vote, both on the first debate on the White Paper and on the last debate on the matter of principle?
The Prime Minister: On the general question, a large number of different points of view have been expressed to me by right hon. and hon. Members of the House since I returned from Paris. Many have emphasised the importance of ending the uncertainty and the importance of industry being able to take decisions in a reasonable time. On the other hand, I have always been anxious that this great matter should be discussed on the merits of the substance, and I hope that the programme I have announced has removed any possible argument about procedural matters in the course of settling this great debate. On the second question raised by my hon. Friend, the Government in the White Paper will set out clearly their views about the arrangements negotiated by my right hon. and learned Friend, and the Government will then ask for support for their views and their policy.
Mr. Jay: Does the Prime Minister understand that if, as appears, he does not at any stage propose to ask for the approval of the electorate, in the opinion of many people any resulting decisions will not be binding either on future Governments or on the country?
The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's constitutional views.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, while I shall want to study in detail the terms of the Motion to be put down, I and many of those who think like me on this matter who will not be catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, at the moment, welcome the programme which my right hon. Friend has put forward as providing the best means of ascertaining whether or not there is a wholehearted approval of Parliament and the people for joining? In expressing that measure of agreement and appreciation of the timetable, I hope my right hon. Friend will accept that I do not find it necessary to qualify it by any observation as to what he might have said a fortnight ago.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks, including his partial quotation from one of my speeches.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that, whether one is a supporter or an opponent of entry to the Common Market, it is obviously right that adequate time should be given for this matter to be discussed before informed opinion both in the country and in Parliament emerges? Will the Prime Minister accept that it is also very much better that a decision should be reached in this House by the free vote of free men rather than by whipped Lobby-fodder voting as they are told? Will he accept the validity of that view if we then have the picture of the Chief Opposition Whip being prepared to vote as he is told by himself and not necessarily according to his conscience? Is the Prime Minister aware that, although some of us are a little disappointed that the Government have not yet canvassed the case for entry with the zeal one would expect of converts—and this is even more true of the Opposition Front Bench—we welcome the opportunity of having plenty of time to convince the electorate of how right the Opposition were to apply for membership and how correct the Government are to carry on with that application?
The Prime Minister: I think that this programme will give sufficient time for consideration by the right hon. Gentleman of all these matters.
Mr. Gorst: When the Prime Minister said that a decision would be made in the autumn, did he mean in this Session of Parliament or in the next Session?
The Prime Minister: The Leader of the House has not yet announced any date or arrangements for the end of the Session after the recess, or about the opening of Parliament. It is our intention, if this Session continues after the recess, that we should then have the debate.
Mr. Barnett: If the Prime Minister seeks the maximum possible national unity for his great cause, will he also recognise that he is doing the maximum possible harm to that cause, and to those who support the cause, both inside and outside the House, by his economic divisive policies? When dealing with the question of a referendum, will the Prime Minister recognise that it is difficult to argue the case for the Burkean philosophy if the Whips are on, and that the best answer would be to allow a free vote of the whole House?
The Prime Minister: I have outlined the Government's attitude in this matter. The attitude of his own party is a question which the hon. Gentleman must discuss with his party Leader.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to make the best use of the period which he has given us to discuss this matter throughout the country we need as much information as possible, and that those bits of information which are hidden under post office counters should come out so that people can read them?
The Prime Minister: The White Paper which the Government will publish will give all the information that is available to us. The White Paper will, therefore, be a substantial document, and we believe it is right that the House should have this information. We shall also consider what other means can be used to make the information as widely known as possible to the public. Several million leaflets have now been printed. There have been complaints that they have not been readily available in post offices and my right hon. and learned Friend has taken action to try to ensure that they are brought to the notice of the public.
Mr. Bidwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that on his timetable he cannot get past stage 2 after the publication of the White Paper if the special conference or the autumn conference of the Labour Party rejects the terms so far negotiated, as we think might happen? Taking into account the views of his hon. Friends, it will not be worth going on with this procedure.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman can, of course, speak for himself, and it may be that he can speak for his party, but he cannot speak for the whole House.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As a middle-aged Conservative, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today, thank him for it and say that, as usual, he has shown great sensitivity to the feelings of the House.
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21ST JUNE—Supply [22nd Allotted Day]: There will be a debate on museum charges which will arise on an Opposition Motion.
Motions on the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) Orders, the fatstock (Guarantee Payments) Order, and the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order.
Motions relating to the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) and (Levy Arrangements) Orders.
At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.
TUESDAY 22ND JUNE—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: A debate on agriculture, fisheries and food.
Remaining stages of the Investment and Building Grants Bill.
650
WEDNESDAY 23RD JUNE and THURSDAY 24TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill.
FRIDAY 25TH JUNE—Second Reading of the Medicines Bill.
Remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, the Pool Competitions Bill, the Rural Water Supplies and Sewerage Bill and of the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill [Lords],
MONDAY 28TH JUNE—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Debate on a topic to be announced later.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account in his business programme the fact that the Government have today published the Consultative Document on Industrial Relations Code of Practice? Since this document though not having the force of law, is taken into account in many legal decisions under the Industrial Relations Bill, will he give an undertaking that Government time will be made available for the House to debate it at an early opportunity? Is he aware that, since this document has been published only today, the House would be satisfied if he agrees to discuss this proposal through the usual channels. Secondly, will he take note that the Opposition are tabling a Motion of censure on the Government on their handling of the economy, in particular in relation to prices and unemployment?
Mr. Whitelaw: On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I agree that this document has only just been published and the House naturally will wish to consider it carefully. I am prepared to discuss through the usual channels how this matter may be handled.
On the second point, I take note of what the Leader of the Opposition says. I assure him that the Government would welcome an opportunity to debate the economic situation before the House rises for the Summer Recess. The Govern-men believe that it would be convenient for this debate to last two days. If the Opposition are making available for this purpose a Supply Day the Government will undertake to provide a day of their own time. If this is agreed, I am prepared to have discussions through the usual channels about the date of such a two-day debate.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman, and I trust that the debate will be on a very early occasion. We had understood that if we were to table a Motion of censure the Government would provide a day in response to that and would have a discussion through the usual channels. We will be happy to co-operate with the Leader of the House in supplying a Supply Day to enable a two-day debate to take place, if that is the wish of the House.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the importance of the National Insurance Bill and the fact that there are a number of Amendments, including Government Amendments, down for Report, does my right hon. Friend intend to take all the remaining stages tonight after the Immigration Bill has terminated, at whatever hour that may be?
Mr. Whitelaw: We would hope to do so. We should see how we get on.
Mr. Stonehouse: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion 592 dealing with genocide in East Bengal and the recognition of Bangla Desh, which has now been signed by 163 right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House? Will he arrange for an early debate on this subject in view of the widespread concern about the continuing genocide in East Bengal? Alternatively, would he ask his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make an early statement announcing that he is referring this question to the Security Council?
[That this House believes that the widespread murder of civilians and the atrocities on a massive scale by the Pakistan Army in East Bengal, contrary to the United Nations Convention on Genocide signed by Pakistan itself, confirms that the military Government of Pakistan has forfeited all rights to rule East Bengal, following its wanton refusal to accept the democratic will of the people expressed in the election of December, 1970; therefore believes that the United Nations Security Council must be called urgently to consider the situation both as a threat to international peace and as a contravention of the Genocide Convention; and further believes that until order is restored under United Nations supervision, the provisional Government of Bangla Desh should be recog-
652
nised as the vehicle for the expression of self-determination by the people of East Bengal.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted that Motion and the very strong support it has received. I cannot undertake that this subject will be debated next week. I can say that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, on the matter of aid as distinct from the political side of the matter, will hope to make a statement to the House early next week.
Sir T. Beamish: Since my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in a Written Reply said that he hoped that a Green Paper on local government finance would be published before the Summer Recess, and in view of the great importance of this question and the widespread interest in it, could the Leader of the House be more positive on this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: Not at this stage, but I certainly share my hon. and gallant Friend's hope.
Mr. Pentland: In view of the Prime Minister's statement today on the E.E.C. programme, will he look at my Early Day Motion 593? If he finds that he is unable to arrange a debate on this subject, would he give serious consideration to my suggestions and report back to the House next week?
[That this House, in supporting the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in their efforts to promote a national debate on the implications involved in Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community, and in view of the need for the electorate to be kept fully informed at this stage, urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that all future debates taking place in the Chamber of the House of Commons on this historic issue shall be televised and broadcast to the nation.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted the hon. Gentleman's Motion about televising debates on the E.E.C. The problem is that one cannot divorce the televising of that particular debate from the general problem of televising Parliament as a whole. Up to now we have said, as I believe has been generally accepted by hon. Members in all parts of the House, that it would be right to take some time

653
yet in this Parliament before we decide to come to a decision on the general issue of televising Parliament.
Mr. John Page: With further reference to the excellent document which has been produced on industrial relations, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that the debate takes place before the Bill comes back to this House from another place?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot give any such undertaking. It would be wrong for me to go any further than the proper undertaking I gave to the Leader of the Opposition that we would discuss the whole handling of this matter through the usual channels.
Mr. C. Pannell: Although, mercifully, there have not lately been many cases of breach of privilege, will the Leader of the House bear in mind that time passes and that it will soon be five years since the Select Committee reported on the law of privilege? I would point out that we will be running into a case where this matter will arise with great urgency. It is no credit to the right hon. Gentleman as Leader of the House that things have gone on so long and we want some action taken in this matter.
Mr. Whitelaw: There is controversy on the subject; the nearer the time comes to bringing this matter forward the more complicated I find the subject becomes. Nevertheless, I undertake to bring the matter forward for decision by the House before the Summer Recess.
Mr. Wiggin: Would the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement next week about the announcement last night concerning the closure of 40 main road bridges and delay on the construction of more than 60 others? Will he accept that, although a decision may have been taken on safety grounds, the cost of delay will be great and a large number of questions still have to be answered?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise the importance of that matter and I know that the Secreary of State for the Environment will wish to inform the House of any development on this matter.
Mr. Leadbitter: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that a considerable amount of disturbing information has come to light since the Foreign Secretary made his statement on
654
East Pakistan earlier this month? Would he bear in mind the point made in Early Day Motion 592, which was mentioned earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse), since it is imperative, despite the Foreign Secretary's attitude, that we should take this matter to the Security Council? Would he reconsider this point and ask his right hon. Friend to make a statement to the House next week, because we fear that the trail of disaster will bring more troubles in East Pakistan and that intervention by the Security Council appears to be essential?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am certain that the Foreign Secretary will take note of these views. So that there should be no misunderstanding, I should stress that the statement by the Foreign Secretary, which I have promised for next week, is on the subject of aid.
Mr. Marten: On which day next week will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster make his statement about the next Common Market negotiations, and how soon thereafter shall we expect to have the White Paper?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot be specific on any of these dates. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make his statement on Thursday next week, but I cannot be absolutely specific on this point. I cannot say anything at this stage about the timing of the White Paper.
Mr. Bob Brown: In view of the insistence of the Prime Minister on honest and open government, may we expect the Patronage Secretary next week to announce a Writ for the Macclesfield by-election?
Mr. Whitelaw: That will be a matter for my right hon. Friend and not for me.
Mr. Jeffrey Archer: I thank my right hon. Friend for so quickly bringing forward the debate on museum charges. Will he be kind enough to ensure that the debate on Europe in the autumn will be long enough to ensure that not only Privy Councillors, senior Conservatives, and middle-aged Conservatives, but also young Conservatives, have time to catch Mr. Speaker's eye?
Mr. Whitelaw: I would never deny myself the credit for something whether or not I have earned it, but I am afraid

655
that I cannot take credit for having brought forward the debate on the museum charges to Monday. It was done entirely at the choice of the Opposition on one of their Supply Days. If I had not recognised their wish, they would have forced me to do something about the matter. Therefore, it is down for debate on Monday.
On my hon. Friend's second point, it is clear—and we will have discussions on this matter—that this particular subject will require a long time for debate.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: When will the House have an opportunity to discuss the effects on Wales and Scotland of entry into the E.E.C.? Does he appreciate that last week in the debate on Welsh affairs neither the Secretary of State for Wales nor the Minister of State said a word about this matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: Wales and Scotland are both parts of the United Kingdom and, inevitably, will be included in the general debate on the whole subject.
Mr. Lawson: Is it not time that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave us the long-awaited statement on steel plans for 1971–72? Will he be making this statement next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am afraid I cannot add anything at this stage to what I said at this time last week.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has the Leader of the House seen Early Day Motion 589 on probation officers salaries, which is in my name and in the names of 85 other hon. Members? In view of the serious situation that may ensue if something is not done about probation officers, will he give time for a debate or will he see that some member of the Government makes a statement on prospects for the future?
[That, in view of the urgent need to expand the Probation Service in order to deal with young offenders and alleviate the present serious overcrowding in prisons, this House calls on the Home Secretary to put forward a substantially increased offer for the salaries of probation officers.]
Mr. Whitelaw: I have noted this Motion. I have also noted that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will
656
answer some Questions on this matter next Thursday. I believe that we should await those replies.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the Leader of the House press upon the Prime Minister the necessity to bring in a Bill for a Scottish Assembly without further delay, since vital questions such as the Scottish economy, Common Market entry, and so on, are awaiting decision and should be discussed by such an assembly? Will he induce his right hon. Friend to bring forward such a provision as soon as possible, or must we regard this as yet another election promise that has not been honoured?
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Member has said and I will see that it is conveyed to my right hon. Friend most closely concerned.
Mr. Adley: Might it not also be possible for English members to have a debate on English affairs?
Mr. Whitelaw: This is a United Kingdom Parliament and all matters concerning the United Kingdom are properly discussed here.
Mr. Ashton: As the Industrial Relations Bill has to come back from the other place into a crowded Session, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will be imposing a Guillotine on the remaining stages?
Mr. Whitelaw: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the original Guillotine Motion he will find the answer there.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am afraid that we must move on. There is a lot to do today.

BILL PRESENTED
  MEDICINES
  Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. James Prior, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, and Mr. Michael Alison, presented a Bill to make further provision as to the fees payable for the purposes of Part II of the Medicines Act 1968: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 190.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  IMMIGRATION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that for very good reasons our Amendment No. 95 is not to be voted upon. I will not dwell on the reason. We accept that your decision was for a good reason. However, may I make it clear, within the rules of order, that for that reason we propose to express ourselves by supporting the Liberal Amendments Nos. 114 and 115.
  Mr. Speaker: That will be in order.

  IMMIGRATION BILL
    Clause 15

      APPEALS IN RESPECT OF DEPORTATION ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 47, in page 15, line 30, leave out from 'him' to 'or' in line 38 and insert:
      ' by virtue of section 3(5) above '.
      No. 48, in page 15, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'above' and insert:
      ' by virtue of section 3(5) '.
      No. 49, in page 16, line 3, at end insert:
      (2A) An appeal under this section against a decision to make a deportation order against a person shall be to the Appeal Tribunal in the first instance, instead of to an adjudicator, if the ground of the decision was that his deportation is conducive to the public good; and a person shall not be entitled to appeal against a decision to make a deportation order against him if the ground of the decision was that his deportation is conducive to the public good as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature.
      No. 50, in page 16, line 4, leave out 'under subsection (1)(b) above' and insert:
      ' against a decision to make a deportation order against him as belonging to the family of another person '.- —[Mr. Maudling.]
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 97, in page 16, line 5, after 'that', insert:
      658
      ' (a) he is capable of providing for his own support without assistance from the other person who is ordered to be deported; or
      (b) he was not when either of the relevant deportation orders were made and had not between the making of the said orders been living as part of the family of the other person ordered to be deported;
      and in either of the cases referred to under (a) and (b) above that it would not be in his interest to be deported or on the ground that '.
      Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that it will be convenient to take also Amendment No. 53, in page 16, line 8, after 'deported', insert:
      ' or on the ground that—
      (a) he is capable of providing for his own support without assistance from the other person who is ordered to be deported; or '
      Mr. Silkin: The purpose of the Amendment is to provide a right of appeal in cases of what has been called family deportation. When we were dealing with that subject in another context last night the Home Secretary, perhaps anticipating the debate on this Amendment, said:
      "I have decided that what I would like to do is to introduce at a later stage … the right of appeal. I will have to draft the wording. It will be a right of appeal in cases of family deportation, direct to the appeal tribunal. I am sorry that I cannot put an Amendment down today, but it will take some drafting."
      I am not sure whether the emphasis was on the word "some", or otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman then said:
      "I am willing to give that undertaking, to introduce a right of appeal in these cases at a later stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 507.]
      We expressed our pleasure that the right hon. Gentleman had succumbed to our pressure on this matter.
      The intention of Amendment No. 97 is to do what the right hon. Gentleman says that he intends to do, and he reserves to himself, as is no doubt proper, the right to carry out the drafting. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary for me to expatiate on the principle of the matter. However, I should appreciate it if the right hon. Gentleman, who has no doubt had an opportunity of considering the Amendment, will tell us about the kind of difficulties which he appears to envisage, how he proposes that this right of appeal should operate in the case of the family of a person who is deported, and how it fits in generally with his scheme

      659
      for supervised departure and the timetable which he has proposed in accordance with earlier Amendments. It would be of assistance if he explained that, particularly as the Amendment which he has undertaken to introduce will be discussed first in another place and will only return to this House at a very late stage.
      4.15 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): As the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) has said, to some extent the Amendment has been overtaken by what I said about a right of appeal. The Amendment would give a right of appeal on certain grounds. I envisage a wider right of appeal. I certainly give an undertaking that the grounds of appeal in the Amendment will be encompassed within the Amendment which I shall put down at a later stage. Were I to accept the Amendment, it
      might exclude other wider grounds which I should like to include. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept my asurance that the purpose of his Amendment will be fully covered by the Amendments I intend putting down at a later stage.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendments made: No. 51, in page 16, line 7, after 'or', insert 'is or was'.
      No. 52, in page 16, line 7, leave out from 'person' to first 'the' in line 9 and insert:
      ' and on an appeal against such a decision '.—[Mr. Maudling.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 114, in page 16, line 14, leave out 'not'.—[Mr David Steel.]
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 226.

      Division No. 381.]

      AYES

      [4.16 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Albu, Austen

      Delargy, H. J.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Dempsey, James

      Janner, Greville

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Doig, Peter

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Dormand, J. D.

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Ashley, Jack

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Douglas-Marnn, Bruce

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, 8.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Driberg, Tom

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Barnes, Michael

      Dunn, James A.

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Barnett, Joel

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Beaney, Alan

      Edeiman, Maurice

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lambie, David

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lamond, James

      Bidwell, Sydney

      English, Michael

      Latham, Arthur

      Bishop, E. S.

      Evans, Fred

      Lawson, George

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)

      Leonard, Dick

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Booth, Albert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Foley, Maurice

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

      Foot, Michael

      Lipton, Marcus

      Buchan, Norman

      Ford, Ben

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Forrester, John

      McBride, Neil

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Freeson, Reginald

      McCartney, Hugh

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      McElhone, Frank

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Ginsburg, David

      McGuire, Michael

      Cant, R. B.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Carmichael, Neil

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mackie, John

      Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Marion, Simon (Bootle)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Marsden, F.

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hardy, Peter

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Merdelson, John

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Millan, Bruce

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Davies, Denzil (Lianetly)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Horam, John

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Mcyle, Roland

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Roberts, R t. H n. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Murray, Ronald King

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Tomney, Frank

      Ogden, Eric

      Roderick. CaerwynE. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)

      Torney, Tom

      O'Malley, Brian

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Oram, Bert

      Roper, John

      Varley, Eric G.

      Orme, Stanley

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Oswald, Thomas

      Shore, Rt. Hfl. Peter (Stepney)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Paget, R. T.

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

      Wallace, George

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Watklns, David

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Sillars, James

      Weltzman, David

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Silverman, Julius

      Wellbeloved, James

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Small, William

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Pentland, Norman

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitlock, William

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Prescott, John

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchln)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Probert, Arthur

      Strang, Gavin

      Woof, Robert

      Rankin, John

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Reed, O. (Sedgefield)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Swain, Thomas

      Mr. David Steel and

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

      Mr. John Golding.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      NOSE

      Adley, Robert

      Fowler, Norman

      McMaster, Stanley

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Fox, Marcus

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

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

      Maddan, Martin

      Astor, John

      Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Madel, David

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Batsford, Brian

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Bell, Ronald

      Goodnew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Gorst, John

      Maudlins, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Cower, Raymond

      Mawby, Ray

      Biffen, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Green, Alan

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Grylls, Michael

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moate, Roger

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Molyneaux, James

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Money, Ernle

      Bray, Ronald

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Monro, Hector

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hay, John

      More, Jasper

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Bryan, Paul

      Hicks, Robert

      Morgan-Giles, Rear Adm.

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

      Hiley, Joseph

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Mudd, David

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

      Holland, Philip

      Murton, Oscar

      Carlisle, Mark

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Neave, Airey

      Channon, Paul

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Nott, John

      Chichester-Clark, R

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Onslow, Cranley

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Cooke, Robert

      James, David

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S

      Coombs, Derek

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Osborn, John

      Cooper, A. E.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Jessel, Toby

      Percival, Ian

      Costain, A. P.

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Critchley, Julian

      Jopling, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Crouch, David

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pounder, Rafton

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

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

      Dixon, Piers

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Drayson, G. B.

      Knox, David

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Eden, Sir John

      Lane, David

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Raison, Timothy

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Redmond, Robert

      Eyre, Reginald

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Farr, John

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

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Fell, Anthony

      Longden, Gilbert

      Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Loveridge, John

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Fidler, Michael

      Luce, R. N.

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Mac Arthur, Ian

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McLaren, Martin

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Rost, Peter

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Sutcliffe, John

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Scott, Nicholas

      Tapsell, Peter

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Sharpies, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Warren, Kenneth

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

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

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Simeons, Charles

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wiggln, Jerry

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Temple, John M.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Soref, Harold

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Speed, Keith

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

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Spence, John

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Worsley, Marcus

      Sproat, Iain

      Trew, Peter

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Stainton, Keith

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Younger, Hn. George

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Waddington, David

      Mr. Walter Clegg.

      Stokes, John

    Clause 17

      APPEALS AGAINST REMOVAL ON OBJECTION TO DESTINATION
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I beg to move Amendment No. 54, in page 18, line 2, leave out 'may' and insert 'is able to'.
      The Amendment is made to meet a point raised in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Subsections (2) and (3) enable a person appealing against refusal of entry, or deportation, to object, on that appeal, to the country or territory to which he is to be removed if notice of the proposed destination is given to him either before or after his appeal is brought. My right hon. Friend contended that such a notice might be given not only after the appeal was brought, but after it was heard, in which case the applicant would be deprived of any opportunity to object to the proposed destination.
      My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that he would consider the point. The Amendment meets the point made by my right hon. Friend, although not precisely in the manner which he suggested at the time.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 55, in page 18, line 16, leave out subsection (6).
      This is an Amendment with which the right hon. Gentleman will be familiar, because it was discussed in Committee. The Clause provides a right of appeal to someone who is being removed from the
      664
      country and who objects specifically to the destination to which he is being sent.
      We then reach subsection (6), which applies to someone who is being deported as a member of someone else's family, and it is at that point that we suddenly find that what appeared to be an eminently sensible right of appeal is subject to all sorts of exceptions. For example, there is no right of appeal to the applicant
      "unless he appeals under this section by virtue of subsection (1)(c)…."
      That, as I understand it, is where the directions are given because he entered in breach of a deportation order.
      One is left wondering why that does not apply if he appeals under subsection (1)(b), that is to say if the directions are given in consequence of a deportation order made against him. We are left wondering what the explanation is. It may be a perfectly convincing one, but in Committee—and it may have had something to do with the hour in the morning when it was discussed—the right hon. Gentleman was not very specific, and we were left wondering about it.
      Then we turn to another exception. We are told that no appeal lies unless he is
      "also appealing against the directions under section 16 above."
      That is more puzzling than ever. One can well understand that he may well be concerned not only about the destination to which he is being sent. He may be worried by something else in the direction and in that situation no doubt he will appeal also about whatever else it was in the direction to which he objected. Then, of course, quite sensibly, one would expect the two appeals to be heard together. But what is the situation if he

      665
      has no objection to anything else in the direction? Is he then to invent some complaint? Is he to search around in the barrel for some artificial objections in the direction in order to found his complaint about the destination to which he is being sent? Or, as a penalty if he cannot do so, is he to be deprived of his appeal as to his destination?
      4.30 p.m.
      Again, we are left wondering as to the reason for this rather curious provision. The right hon. Gentleman said in Committee that he would look at this matter again. We are listening with ears flapping to hear the explanation. If it is a convincing one we will not, of course, take the matter any further.
      Mr. Sharples: Subsection (6) of Clause 17 refers to deportation orders made against people belonging to the family of another person to be deported. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend has given an undertaking to the House that he will re-examine the whole of this question. He will, of course, include in that re-examination the particular points just raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Our intention is to look again at this whole question of rights of appeal exercisable by members of families whom it is proposed to deport with the head of the family. I hope that with that assurance the hon. and learned Gentleman will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. Archer: If the whole of the subsection is to be looked at again it may be that we do not require an explanation as to the very curious form in which this was originally drafted. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 18

      NOTICE OF MATTERS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THERE ARE RIGHTS OF APPEAL
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 56, in page 18, line 38, at end insert:
      'and the way in which a notice is to be or may be given '.
      666
      This Amendment is intended to make it clear that the power to make regulations about notices of decision includes power to specify the way in which a notice may be given. It was not entirely clear from the present wording of Clause 18(1) that the regulations may provide for notice to be given to a solicitor or other representative acting on behalf of a person affected by a decision; or where a decision affects a child, for notice to be given to a parent or guardian. These are obviously common sense provisions and it is desirable to include them in the regulations. The Amendment will allow the necessary flexibility.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 19

      DETERMINATION OF APPEALS BY ADJUDICATORS
      Amendment made: No. 57, in page 19, line 30, at end insert:
      (4) Where in accordance with section 15(2A) above a person appeals to the Appeal Tribunal in the first instance, this section shall apply with the substitution of references to the Tribunal for references to an adjudicator.—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 21

      REFERENCE OF CASES FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
      Amendment made: No. 58, in page 20, line 10, after 'Tribunal', insert:
      ' or the Tribunal has dismissed an appeal made to them in the first instance by virtue of section 15(2A) above'.—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 22

      PROCEDURE
      Amendment made: No. 59, in page 20, line 35, leave out 'to remit an appeal' and insert:
      ', on an appeal from an adjudicator, to remit the appeal '.—[Mr. Maudling.]
      Mr. Maudling: I beg to move Amendment No. 60, in page 21, line 18, to leave out 'for so long' and insert:
      'while the allegation at (b) above is inquired into by the adjudicator or Tribunal and, if it appears to the adjudicator or Tibunal that the allegation is made out, for such further period '.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we can also take Amendment No. 61, in page 21, line 18, at end insert:
      ' determine whether the said allegations are substantiated; and if they are held to be substantiated, for such further period as is necessary to '.
      Mr. Maudling: This is an interesting point which arose during the discussion. Where it is alleged that a passport or other travel document is a forgery and this is to be disputed, the question arises of methods whereby forgeries are detected. The House will be aware that this information can in certain cases help the passport forgery industry, which is a very flourishing one in certain parts of the world. It is therefore important to ensure that in circumstances where disclosure might damage the protection of legitimate passports against forgery, and disclosure could be damaging, it should be prevented. It was intended that the decision to take evidence in private should be in the hands of the tribunal. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) suggested, the drafting of the Bill did not make this absolutely clear. Therefore, we introduce this Amendment to make it absolutely clear that evidence should be held in camera only when the tribunal decides that it is right in the national interest that this particular evidence should be taken in camera. I believe this meets the feelings on both sides of the Committee.
      I believe our Amendment is a little better than the alternative offered by the Opposition because it is not quite so wide. If I read it aright, hon. Gentlemen opposite would allow the tribunal to decide to hold evidence in camera while considering either (a) or (b) under subsection (3); whereas we confine our Amendment to (b). In other words, the question of whether, if there is forgery alleged, evidence should be heard in open court arises in our Amendment only when it comes to a question of methods of detection; and if the tribunal thinks fit evidence on that particular point should be given in camera. I believe the Amendment I am proposing meets the purposes of the Committee. It is largely of a clarificatory kind and meets the requirement of those who discussed it.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: In Committee the error in the drafting of the Bill as it originally stood was pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman by myself and on that occasion I had the support, eventually, of his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman having said that he hesitated to dispute with me about the interpretation of Bills somewhat arrogantly went on to do so and maintained his attitude right through the whole of the debate until, eventually, he was good enough to say he would look again at the draft. Now, apparently, he has found that we were right and has put the matter right. We in our Amendment No. 61 were seeking to accomplish precisely the same thing as he was. He tells me there is some difference. He may be right, because I hesitate to dispute with the right hon. Gentleman about the interpretation of Amendments; however, as we have the same objective in view I am prepared to accept his Amendment.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: It was said during the debates we had in Committee on this aspect of the matter that this was a dangerous concept; and I believe it was widely recognised that to exclude an appellant from any part of the proceedings is something at which one ought to look very carefully. There can be no doubt at all that there are certain instances which have been postulated by the right hon. Gentleman where for the evidence to be divulged in public, and in particular to the appellant, could be dangerous as far as the security of the State is concerned. He made particular reference to a situation where one had a massive forgery business so far as passports were concerned, but nevertheless while one recognises the difficulties facing the Executive in circumstances such as this, we have to be extremely vigilant about how this kind of procedure is to operate in practice.
      The question I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman so far as procedure is concerned is this: how does he envisage that those representing the Secretary of State before the tribunal would attempt to make out a case to the satisfaction of the tribunal that it is necessary that part of the proceedings should be held in secret? Is it envisaged that some evidence would have to be adduced or that a mere statement by the counsel

      669
      representing the Crown would be sufficient? This is a vital concern.
      Obviously, if the Crown intends to rely merely on an assertion that it would be inimical to the interests of the State for the evidence to be given in public or in the presence of the appellant, that could not be challenged. It would be a mere assertion. But if it is envisaged that evidence can be produced, how will this assist the Crown? Would it not in fact defeat the purpose of the Amendment?
      There is a real difficulty here. The Amendment says that if it appears to the adjudicator or tribunal "that the allegation is made out", this course shall be followed. So it is important to know what procedure the right hon. Gentleman envisages. If the adjudicator or tribunal is merely to be a rubber stamp, if those who represent him say, "This is a matter of fundamental importance, the interests of the State may be affected by this, and therefore we urge you to find that this is a matter where the evidence should not be held in public," that is not a very effective safeguard. So I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what he has in mind here.
      Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is not quite so much on the ball as usual. The point is that if the Crown maintains that the disclosure of detection methods is not in the national interest, it has to satisfy the tribunal, which must then determine what evidence it wants. It is not for me to determine the form of the hearing or what evidence should be put forward.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. With respect, he must have some idea of how this procedure will work. Clearly no tribunal could possibly be satisfied that a case of this kind should be held in public on the mere say-so of those representing the Home Secretary. So does he envisage that it will be necessary for some evidence to be introduced? Would that not destroy the whole of the argument on which he based his case in Committee?
      Mr. Maudling: With respect, if the tribunal wants evidence, as it certainly will, it will be disclosed to it, but the whole point is that it will be disclosed to the tribunal and not to the appellant.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: To take this point a little further. The kind of information which we are seeking is this: will those laying evidence on behalf of the Crown apply to the tribunal to have the particular evidence heard in camera? Presumably, once that is done, the tribunal will go into private session and look at the evidence. If it is satisfied that the evidence is of national importance, will it then be open to the tribunal to say that that evidence could not be challenged by the appellant?
      Has the tribunal the right to say, "We do not think that this evidence is so important that it should not be available to the public. We will therefore go back into open session and the Crown must then lead its evidence in public before the appellant, so that it can be challenged"? When the Home Secretary says that it is the tribunal's duty to decide, is he saying that it will be the duty of the tribunal to decide whether the evidence which it has heard in camera shall remain so or not? If he can assure us on that, some of my doubts, if not all of them, will be removed.
      Mr. Maudling: I do not see the problem here. Where it is alleged that disclosure to the party concerned, in other words, the appellant, of any matters relating to the method of detection would be contrary to the public interest, the adjudicator or the tribunal shall arrange for procedures to take place in the absence of that party and his representatives while the allegation that this information should not be disclosed is inquired into by the tribunal.
      In other words, if our people say, "We cannot disclose to the party concerned the method of detection," they will have to satisfy the tribunal that that is a good point. If we satisfy them, it will be accepted, and if we do not, that is too bad.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down. We are at cross-purposes on this. I envisage the situation as being in two parts—
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. Gentleman is not in Committee. He must ask leave of the House to speak again.
      Mr. Davis: I was trying to speak before the right hon. Gentleman sat down, but in order to safeguard the situation beyond all reasonable doubt, may I have leave of the House?
      The situation falls into two parts. The first is the application made by those representing the Crown that certain evidence is likely to fall into this category. Second, if the tribunal considers that the evidence falls into this category, it conducts the inquiry into the evidence itself in the absence of the appellant.
      But am I not right in asserting that, when the Crown makes its application, the appellant is then present and can challenge whatever is put forward? It is only when the tribunal gives leave to the Crown that the appellant disappears from the scene. So there is a real procedural difficulty.
      Mr. Maudling: The hon. Member is making terribly heavy weather of what is a quite straightforward matter. The Crown says that something is a forgery and may in certain circumstances say, "We have certain evidence which we cannot dislose to the appellant". The tribunal says, "You must prove to us that this evidence should not be disclosed," and that is heard in private. If the tribunal is satisfied that it should not be disclosed then it is not. If the tribunal is not satisfied that it should not be disclosed, then it must be disclosed or the case must be dropped.
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: During this interesting discussion, it has occurred to me that a point arises under the Amendment which the Government might consider. I am not asking for a reply at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman will see in line 19 the words "those matters", which, as the Clause stands, clearly refers to paragraphs (a) and (b). In fact, by the time we get to those matters, after his Amendment has been inserted, paragraph (b) will have been disposed of. So it looks as though those are not the most apt words. Some consequential Amendment may be necessary. Perhaps the Home Secretary will look at that.
      Mr. Maudling: Certainly.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 24

      ILLEGAL ENTRY AND SIMILAR OFFENCES
      Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 116, in page 22, line 12, after 'he', insert 'knowingly'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 117, in page 22, line 15, after 'he', insert 'knowingly' and No. 118, in page 22, line 20. after 'he', insert 'knowingly'.
      Mr. Steel: I raised this matter in an Amendment in Committee and sought to insert the words "knowingly and wilfully". After listening to the debate I withdrew my Amendment because there was general agreement that the word "wilfully" would not be appropriate but that the word "knowingly" might be applicable.
      The proposition of the Minister of State in Committee was that mens rea would be assumed in the offence as provided in the Bill at present. In other words, a person who was not patrial would be guilty of an offence if, contrary to the legislation, he entered the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave. In the discussion which took place in Committee it was made clear that the word "knowingly" occurs in the next Clause on several occasions, and at the beginning of Clause 25 we read:
      "any person knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for securing or facilitating the entry into the United Kingdom of anyone whom he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be an illegal entrant shall be guilty of an offence."
      However, the word "knowingly" does not appear in the same context in Clause 24.
      As a result of our discussion in Committee, the Minister undertook to consult the Law Offiers on this question. He has done better than that. He has brought one of them with him, and we are delighted to see the Solicitor-General gracing our deliberations.
      I am sure that this marginal improvement—I accept that it would be no more than marginal—would improve the Bill, and I trust that the hon. and learned

      673
      Gentleman will say that the Government accept it.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that, as my hon. Friend undertook in Committee, his proposed modification has been carefully looked into. I am glad to be able to advise the House to accept the insertion of the word "knowingly"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—wait for it—in the first two instances, but I would advise against doing so in the third.
      Mr. David Steel: Why?
      The Solicitor-General: The case which was advanced by the Government in Committee against the insertion of words identifying mens rea is that since the decision in Sweet v. Parsley, the courts will scrutinise any particular case to identify exactly what it is the wording of the offence involves to determine whether or not a guilty mind is needed.
      Although some discussion has been going on in the House and elsewhere about the desirability of a more general use of words plainly identifying the nature of a guilty mind, there are some circumstance where it is neither necessary nor desirable for that to be done. Consider, for example, the reference of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles to Clause 25, which refers to
      "Any person knowingly concerned in making or carrying out arrangements for security or facilitating … entry."
      It is necessary to have the word "knowingly" there as a matter of common sense because one might otherwise find someone who sold a railway ticket being charged for facilitating entry when, in fact, he thought it was a wholly innocent transaction.
      On the other hand, if one considers the formulation of different offences, one might refer to "Anybody who sits in Mr. Speaker's Chair". Here the formulation of the word "sit" implies a conscious, positive activity, and it is scarcely necessary to insert the word "knowingly".
      Mr. James Callaghan: He may not know it is Mr. Speaker's Chair.
      The Solicitor-General: That must be taken into account in the context of the
      674
      particular word, and it would depend on how the offence was formulated. One might refer to, "Any person who sits in the Chair at that end of the Chamber". If such a person were guilty of an offence, then to say "knowingly sits" would be irrelevant, so that the point which the right hon. Gentleman makes in a sense illustrates what I am saying. A lot can depend on the formulation of the offence. For example, to any person who drinks something, it is clear that his drinking is a conscious act.
      If, as I suggest, the House considers it wise to make this change in subsection 1 (a) and (b), it will be necessary to remove subsection (2) from Clause 24 because the appearance of the word "knowingly" will make that provision unnecessary.
      On the other hand, subsection (1)(c), which says
      "having lawfully entered the United Kingdom without leave by virtue of section 8(1) above"
      takes us back to the provisions dealing with the entrant seaman who overstays his time here because he is required to leave when his boat leaves. On analysis, it seems plain that he must, entering under those circumstances, know when he is required to leave, and that it would not be right to include the word "knowingly" in those circumstances because to do so could give rise to practical difficulties. Indeed, the inclusion of the word could give rise to more difficulties than its non-appearance.
      I apreciate the general way in which one might approach these matters, perhaps thinking that once the principle is accepted of spelling out the nature of the guilty mind, the same should be done everywhere, but that often means its becoming more difficult to formulate the state of mind than by leaving it to be implied by the activity which is being proscribed. It is on that basis that we do not take the view that the drafting would be improved by inserting "knowingly" in subsection (1)(c).
      Mr. Peter Archer: The hon. and learned Gentleman will, of course, be aware of many examples of people remaining behind unknowingly. For example, the seaman's watch could be slow, so making him miss his ship.
      The Solicitor-General: That is exactly right, and the House may feel that merely to assert "My watch was five minutes slow. I am therefore not guilty of remaining beyond the required time" would not and should not be a good defence.
      One can visualise all sorts of excuses that could be advanced, without the need to consider extreme cases. But what if the seaman was unconscious because he had just had his appendix removed and was under deep narcosis therapy? [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who is extremely knowledgeable about the ports of South Wales, made a sotto voce suggestion, which, in fairness to him, I will not repeat.
      An infinite number of excuses could be advanced, and it would create great difficulties of formulation if the word "knowingly" were inserted in subsection (1)(c). Even if one were to have some different formulation, such as "without reasonable excuse", that would give rise to great difficulties of interpretation. The better proposition is to adopt what I would call the Sweet v. Parsley view. The defence could be, say, "In the circumstances of this case, unconscious as he was and lying in a hospital ward, it cannot be established that he remained here within the provisions of Clause 24(1)(c)"
      We have looked at this matter carefully, and it is not easy to decide in any particular case where the balance should lie. I hope that hon. Members appreciate the care of our consideration by the two-thirds' extent of our virtue and acknowledge that we are not hanging on to the final third out of some sense of amour propre but because, following an examination of all the difficulties involved, this is the best course to take.
      Mr. Peter Archer: I do not suggest that we are discussing a matter of vital principle or that my hon. Friend's wish to take a firm stand on it. However, I am puzzled in that, though I have not considered the issue as deeply as the Solicitor-General, it seems difficult to comprehend the plight of someone who might be remaining in this country because he is under anaesthetic in hospital or in the midst of being extracted from a road accident. "Remaining" does not entail any state of mind. I should not
      676
      have thought that any defence based upon that kind of semantic approach would have stood much chance of success.
      5.0 p.m.
      I appreciate the difficulty which the hon. and learned Gentleman has posed, that if the prosecution had the additional burden of proving that the offence was committed knowingly—that is to say, of negating a possible defence that the offence was committed unintentionally—this would be a burden which would probably be too heavy reasonably to expect the prosecution to discharge. Would it be possible to do this in reverse, as the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested? Could we not place the burden of establishing an excuse on the defence? If someone said to a court, "This was quite unintentional. I did not realise that my watch was slow and I was panic-stricken when I discovered that my ship had left ", and he had the burden of saying this in defence, would he have a conviction recorded against him in those circumstances? If he says it convincingly enough, the court would no doubt believe it and he will be acquitted; if he does not say it convincingly enough, then no doubt he will be convicted. Is there anything terribly worrying about that?
      The Solicitor-General: We are here discussing the inter-position of the word "knowingly". I take it that the hon. and learned Gentleman is persuaded of the unwisdom of "knowingly" in that particular place. We have looked at the alternative possibility, but in the light of what he and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) have said, we will look at it again. But the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that there are practical difficulties in the particular circumstances of that case. I can give no undertaking to accept the suggestion, but certainly we will look at it, having dealt with the particular "knowingly" with which we were anxious to deal.
      Mr. David Steel: The Solicitor-General referred to the two-thirds Government virtue. It would be grudging not to accept this. If two-thirds of my Amendments had been accepted, I should be delighted and the Bill would have been greatly improved.
      In view of the very interesting explanation given by the hon. and learned

      677
      Gentleman about whether it is or is not proper to insert the word, I wonder whether one could not improve on my drafting of the Amendment and whether the "knowingly" in Clause 24(1)(a) should not come after "United Kingdom", because "entering" is a positive act, just as "sitting" is. It may be preferable to word it:
      "… if contrary to this Act he enters the United Kingdom knowingly in breach of a deportation order …".
      If the Solicitor-General shares the view that my Amendment is capable of improvement in that way, I should accept his advice and seek leave to withdraw it at this stage, as he is to tighten up subsection (b) in another place. I think that it is capable of improvement in the light of his explanation.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 117, in page 22, line 15, after "he", insert "knowingly".—[Mr. Sharples.]
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 22, line 23, after "under", insert "Schedule 2 to".
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we can discuss Amendment No. 64, in page 22, line 28, after 'under', insert 'Schedule 2 or 3 to'.
      Amendment No. 98, in page 22, line 29, at end insert:
      ' being a restriction imposed upon him pending a decision whether or not he be given leave to enter the United Kingdom or pursuant to the making against him of a deportation order.'
      and Amendment No. 65, in page 22, line 31, after 'under', insert 'Schedule 2 or 3 to '.
      Mr. Sharples: These Amendments are intended to make more specific the definition of certain offences under Clause 24(1). When we were discussing this matter in Standing Committee, the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) suggested to me that the wording of Clause 24(1)(e) was very much wider than the situation to which it was intended to apply. He said it might be thought to refer—although I made it quite clear that it did not—to the offence of failing to register with the police.
      678
      The Amendments are intended to clarify the position and to narrow the definition to make it clear that it refers only to offences under Schedule 2 or Schedule 3. This meets the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      I have looked carefully at Amendment No. 98. If the hon. and learned Gentleman looks carefully at the Bill as now amended, he will see that if we accept the first three Amendments the situation—I hope he will agree—which Amendment No. 98 seeks to cover is already covered by the Amendments I am proposing.
      Amendment No. 68 meets a point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). He suggested that in Clause 26(1)(a) the words making it an offence to refuse or fail
      "… to furnish or produce any information in his possession, or any documents …"
      should be qualified by words such as "without reasonable excuse, and in Committee I undertook to consider that suggestion. I have now had the opportunity to do so and have decided to accept his proposal.
      Mr. Peter Archer: It would be ungracious of us not to welcome the Amendments. But I wonder whether we should be suitably grateful to the Government for having accepted our suggestion or whether they should be grateful to us for having tightened what was a certain slipshod drafting. The Clause was loosely drafted originally. The offences were defined too widely. In Committee the hon. Gentleman undertook to look at the matter, and we are suitably grateful for this result.
      I hope that it will not be thought that I am being hypercritical and looking a gift horse in the mouth if I say that we are not wholly happy with the draftsmanship regarding Amendment No. 64 and the others. This arose in an exchange in Committee when I pointed out that if the words of subsection (1)(e) were taken at their face value, it did not appear to require the power of arrest without warrant in subsection (3). The hon. Gentleman explained that it was intended to apply only where someone was awaiting a decision on whether he was to be admitted or not. The hon. Gentleman said:
      "Paragraph (e) deals specifically with the case of a person who is awaiting a decision

      679
      as to whether or not he will be admitted. He is allowed to leave the port, but is told that special restrictions are to be placed upon him while a decision is taken, rather than his being retained in custody at the point of embarkation. Those are the special kind of restrictions to which paragraph (e) refers."
      I then said:
      "The hon. Gentleman has been very fair about paragraph (d), and I am most grateful to him. Does not it follow from what he has just said that the wording of paragraph (e) is obviously very much wider than the situation to which it is intended to apply? Will he include that in his consideration at the same time?"
      Very fairly, the hon. Gentleman immediately said:
      "Certainly, I will look at the wording of paragraph (e)"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 25th May, 1971; c. 1228–9.]
      This is the result. Amendment No. 64 is the Government's attempt to meet the point.
      Amendment No. 98, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, is our attempt to meet the same point. I seek only to put up the two Amendments for scrutiny, not competition. If it is not out of order, I invite any right hon. or hon. Gentleman to look at the wording of the two Amendments. One of my right hon. Friends says that I would be grossly out of order if I made such a suggestion.
      The Government Amendments are legislation by reference. It means that anyone who wants to know what is forbidden under the subsection has to look at Schedule 2 and Schedule 3. One can imagine a busy official seeking to frame an indictment or a charge. He would have to do so by reference to the Schedules.
      It is even more worrying than that because these offences give rise, under subsection (3), to a right of arrest without warrant, so some unhappy policeman or immigration officer has to decide, on the spur of the moment in some dark alleyway, whether the situation with which he is confronted is one in which he is entitled to arrest without warrant. He then finds that the reference he is making relates to a general specification of Schedule 2.
      We have sought to spell out in words of one syllable precisely what is the offence with which we are dealing. There is no point between us other than one of pure draftsmanship. As the whole argument started on a point of draftsmanship, when we pointed out what is now
      680
      accepted by the Government—a certain looseness in the original drafting—we are entitled to say that in the interests of future practitioners, future policemen, and future immigrants it might be as well to get it as clear as possible. This is why we have tabled Amendment No. 98.
      If the Minister is adamant about this, we shall not divide the House on his Amendments, and I understand that we shall not have an opportunity to vote on ours. It lies in the Government's hands whether they would like to think about this again and at a later stage spell out in the subsection exactly what is the offence which is being talked about, rather than merely refer to the whole of the Schedule.
      Mr. Sharples: I am persuaded at the moment that the advice that I have received from the draftsmen is correct. However, I will, of course, carefully consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and, after having done so, if I come to a different conclusion I will arrange to have the necessary Amendments tabled.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further amendments made: No. 64, in page 22, line 28, after 'under' insert 'Schedule 2 or 3 to'.
      No. 65, in line 31, after 'under' insert 'Schedule 2 or 3 to'.—[Mr. Maudling.]
      Mr. Maudling: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 23, line 4, at end insert:
      'other than an offence under subsection (1)(d) above '.
      The Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in Committee to reconsider a point. It arises on the power of a constable or immigration officer to arrest without warrant. The Bill as drafted gives this power for "anyone who has, or who is suspected with reasonable cause to have
      "committed or attempted to commit an offence under this section."
      Clause 24(1) specifies a number of offences. It was argued in Committee that an offence under paragraph (d)—
      "if, without reasonable excuse, he fails to comply with any requirement imposed on him under this Act to report to a medical officer of health, or to attend, or submit to a test or examination, as required by such an officer"

      681
      is of a different order from the other offences and, therefore, that there should not be power to arrest without warrant in that case.
      The Amendment fulfils the intention of eliminating the power of arrest without warrant in the case of offences under subsection (1)(d).
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25

      ASSISTING ILLEGAL ENTRY, AND HARBOURING
      Mr. Maudling: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 23, line 33, leave out '£200 'and insert' £400 '.
      This again arises from a discussion in Committee. It is a question of the penalty for someone who knowingly harbours
      "anyone who he knows or has reasonable cause for believing to be either an illegal entrant or a person who has committed an offence under section 24(1)(b) or (c) ".
      This is all part of the general picture of penalties against people involved in illegal trafficking in immigrants. The whole House will agree that traffic in immigrants is a very sorry traffic indeed. It involves people being brought here illegally, often at the expense of all their savings, and it often involves their being left here in destitute circumstances. Those who take part in this exercise deserve to be punished.
      Subsection (2) makes it an offence knowingly to harbour an illegal entrant. The penalty provided is a fine of not more than £200. It was argued on both sides in Standing Committee that the fine should be increased in line with the fine of £400 in subsection (1). As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, offences of this kind are usually relatively trivial, but it is for the court to decide in a particular case what the appropriate penalty is. We are merely prescribing the maximum fine.
      As there was a view on both sides of the Committee that the fine should be increased from £200 to £400, we have tabled the Amendment to achieve that.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 26

      GENERAL OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATION OF ACT
      Amendment made: No. 68, in page 24, line 41, leave out first 'or' and insert:
      (b) if without reasonable excuse he refuses or fails.—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Clause 29

      CONTRIBUTIONS FOR EXPENSES OF PERSONS RETURNING ABROAD
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 144, in page 27, line 15, leave out from 'may' to 'to' in line 17 and insert:
      ' subject to the following provisions of this section, provide funds to the extent that he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine '.
      Mr. Depuly Speaker: With this Amendment the House can discuss also Amendment No. 145, in page 27, line 21, at end add:
      (2) The Secretary of State shall make regulations for the appointment in the manner prescribed thereby of an organistion or organisations to administer the funds provided in accordance with this section and for the revocation of any such appointment and for the payment to any such organisation of the costs of administration out of public funds and for prescribing the rules governing the administration of such funds and in particular for ensuring that no such funds are made available except to a person applying therefor voluntarily and without having been subject to any threat or inducement and for ensuring that any such organisation shall make an annual report to Parliament.
      (3) Regulations made under this section shall be of no effect until a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by each House of Parliament.
      Mr. Rees: One of the purposes of Report stage is to enable the House to discuss some of the major issues of the Bill. The issue of repatriation is one of the major issues of the Bill. This is not just a probing Amendment. We feel strongly about it and, unless we are convinced during the discussion, we shall divide the House on it.
      During the period of the previous Government there was much talk of immigration being out of control. This has been used as one of the justifications for the Bill, although we have had no evidence

      683
      for it. It has become one of the myths in this subject. The corollary of immigration being out of control over a period of years is the subject of repatriation. It is an emotive word of itself. It has been used before. It is in the political pamphlets of 70 years ago with regard to the Jews. It was used in the 1930s in the East End. It is a simple solution to what is indeed a problem when races of different colours mix with their different social cultures. It was prior to 1970, and it has been since then, one of the arguments of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
      In 1967 the present Prime Minister said this at Ipswich:
      "Those immigrants and their families who wish to return home should be given every assistance to do so."
      As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West pointed out, there was no qualification in that statement made by the present Prime Minister.
      At a later stage in York the present Prime Minister said this:
      "It remains an important part of our policy that those Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin will be eligible to receive assisted passages from public funds. This should not be limited as at present to those who are destitute."
      At the General Election the Tory Party made this promise:
      "We will give assistance to Commonwalth immigrants who wish to return to their country of origin."
      In February of this year, just before the Bill was published, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said this:
      "Secondly, this Government is long and deeply pledged to assist all those New Commonwealth immigrants who wish to do so to return to their homelands. No limit has been placed upon the numbers to which the pledge applies: it is, in terms, open to all."
      On Second Reading Clause 29 was qualified by the Secretary of State in this way:
      "The question of repatriation is dealt with in Clause 29 …".
      He explained it and continued with these words:
      "This is only an enabling power. Let me make clear what the Government intend to do. I do not believe in large-scale repatriation. It is wrong because it would not work and the attempt to make it work would be enormously damaging to what I see as the real
      684
      objective of our policy, namely, to improve community relations among people already here. That is why we do not intend to embark on a large scale programme of repatriation. It would not be right to pay the fares home of those who can afford to pay them themselves. If people can afford to pay and want to leave this country, it is obviously a bribe to them to go. How can we reconcile that with our desire to make one single community in this country?
      However, there is an argument for extending the present very limited powers to assist repatriation. They are limited pretty well to those who come under the aegis of the social benefit system. There may be instances of immigrant families who clearly have not settled down and will not settle down in this country and who would like to go home but cannot afford to do so. It seems to me common sense, humanitarian and in everyone's interest to provide assistance in such cases. This is the Government's thinking behind the policy of repatriation and this is the way in which we intend to use these powers if the House gives them to us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 53–4.]
      Here came the qualification on Second Reading of a more general statement that had been made before the Election. The Government policy is, in fact, only a development of the existing scheme. It is made in an Immigration Bill. It is a social security development.
      In Committee we on this side tried to build on this feeling which we accepted—that there was a social security aspect. We wished it to be done through the Supplementary Benefits Commission, but the Government rejected this. The Home Secretary used this language:
      "We have been pursuing various ideas of introducing some voluntary body of standing and knowledge of these things which really could help. I am able to inform the Committee that we have been having discussions with an eminent body, the International Social Service which, I believe, could contribute a lot in this field. Although we are only in the discussion stage, that is the sort of thing I had in mind. I believe that when we have set up a scheme—the regulations under the Clause will be subject to Treasury approval; they will lay down the shape and pattern of the scheme—the administration of the scheme could be much better carried out by a body of that kind, if it could be arranged, than by the Home Office, the Treasury, or indeed any other Government Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 25th May, 1971; c. 1348–9.]
      It is not to be the Home Office or the Treasury. It is odd, nevertheless, if that is the Home Secretary's view, and if that is the philosophy behind the Clause, that it should be put into an Immigration Bill. So the discussions are taking place with the International Social Service.
      Amendment No. 144 is a paving Amendment. Amendment No. 145 is the meat of our argument. The last four or five lines in particular we want to put into a Bill to give them the force of Statute law. They say:
      "…in particular for ensuring that no such funds are made available except to a person applying therefor voluntarily and without having been subject to any threat or inducement and for ensuring that any such organisation shall make an annual report to Parliament."
      The last point is one about which I feel very strongly. With the proliferation in the modern State of large numbers of organisations, it is important that an annual report should be made to Parliament to ensure that we can consider means of parliamentary accountability. Even more important, we have reinforced in our Amendment what the right hon. Gentleman said was his philosophy, that a return home shall be voluntary, without the immigrant's having been made subject to any threat or inducement.
      Our Amendment sums up what we feel very strongly. We wish to help the Government, and we reinforce them by the Amendment. We wish to help them to back-pedal from the generality of their election pledges. But what we wish to help them do more than anything else is to do what they said in Committee they wanted, and we wish to do it in this way. We feel very strongly about this aspect because repatriation arguments in the sense in which they were discussed before the election were on all fours with the argument about immigration's being out of control. It did a great deal of harm to race relations. It was discussed in all parts of the country. Now, as far as repatriation is concerned, we have got it right, and we will have it, if the House agrees, enshrined in an Act.
      Mr. Robert Hughes: We had in Committee a considerable discussion about the whole question of repatriation. Because of the kind of feeling that there has been, not only in our generation but in generations past, about repatriation, Governments of many political colours have thought that it was an answer to some of their problems over immigrant communities. One of the proud boasts of the South African Nationalist Government when they came to power in 1947 was that they would solve the problem
      686
      of the Indian community in South Africa by repatriation. Some of us feel that the Bill too closely parallels the views expressed by that Government and in some cases by the National Socialist Party in Germany before the war.
      We are very concerned about the kind of image that was given to repatriation because it was sold to the public at large as a method of controlling the numbers of immigrants in this country, but more particularly of immigrants whose skins happen to be a different colour from our own. If we were really concerned about immigrants in general, we should be back to the same old nasty business that we had before the war about the repatriation of Jews and the Irish.
      Today, repatriation is talked of almost exclusively in terms of coloured immigrants. It is because of that that we are very concerned about the wide powers the Clause gives the Home Secretary. He, in his characteristically bland manner and in the image of the liberal Home Secretary which he sets out to be, rightly points out that there are occasions when repatriation may be an answer. No one who has had to deal with personal problems of immigrants, as almost every hon. Member has, can fail to realise that people land in difficulties for all sorts of reasons. There may very well be cases, such as I have had, where the return of an immigrant to his country of origin is necessary for the good of his health or the good of his family, and in those circumstances no none would oppose any method of assisting such people to leave this country.
      5.30 p.m.
      We disagree with those who drafted the Bill in our belief that if powers for greater repatriation are necessary they should not be in a Bill purporting to deal with immigration control. The Bill has been widely sold as a method of controlling the numbers of new immigrants, and more particularly of reducing their numbers. I do not think that any Opposition hon. Member in Committee could have failed to be other than appalled at the ideas of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). He made it clear that he thought he was expressing the true and official Conservative policy about repatriation. He certainly was not talking of repatriation in terms only of those who were destitute or

      687
      who had manifestly failed to adapt to their new society. He was talking of removing large numbers of people in order greatly to reduce the number of immigrants here. In those circumstances, we cannot be expected to accept the Clause as it stands.
      At all times the word "voluntarily" has been stressed on both sides as being of paramount importance. I would not dream of misleading the House or the country by suggesting that official Conservative policy, as espoused by either the Home Secretary or by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, was one of forced repatriation in the sense of saying that there is to be a quota of people who will leave this country whether they like it or not. What we are concerned about is how far voluntary removal from this country is closely tied up with harassment, which can take many forms; it does not have to be the form which leads to marches through immigrant areas, shouts of "Go home" and so on. It can be very subtle. Those of us who have followed very closely the harassment of tenants whom landlords want to remove know how subtle it can be, with the legal letters alleging all kinds of things flying backwards and forwards constantly, and so on.
      I believe that as drafted the Bill would allow a Home Secretary, pressed by the clamour of people who know no better, to move towards a subtle kind of harassment, particularly if the policy espoused in Committee were introduced. I know that the idea of a take-up campaign was sold in Committee as something of humane value. There can be no mincing of words. It is harassment if, whenever an immigrant worker becomes unemployed and goes to the labour exchange to try to find a job, or to the Social Security office to try to obtain means to maintain his family whilst he is seeking another job, it is suggested that he might return to his country of origin, and if there is money available to take him back. It was suggested in Committee that every immigrant who experienced difficulty should have it brought to his attention that the Clause allows the Home Secretary to spend money on voluntary repatriation. That will be seen by the immigrant community as being harassment.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman say that it is justifiable to withhold from someone the knowledge of a public provision which is available to him? Is he really stating that when Parliament has deliberately provided facilities, the knowledge of those facilities should not be brought to those for whom they are available?
      Mr. Hughes: I think the right hon. Gentleman anticipates the point I am about to make. The borderline between harassment and encouragement, between saying to someone who is genuinely seeking to go home that there are facilities available and say that every time an immigrant seeks help from any authority he is to be told that those facilities are available, is very narrow. I believe that they are the same thing. I seek to make absolutely plain to the House and the right hon. Gentleman the difference between harassment and encouragement. If an immigrant who tells an authority, "I am in serious difficulty. I think that on balance I should like to go home "is told," We are prepared to help you to go home in those circumstances ", that is encouragement. But if on every occasion the immigrant is told, "You must go home ", that is harassment.
      The policy put forward in Committee was one of saying that the immigrant will be told on every conceivable occasion when he has housing difficulties, health difficulties, employment difficulties, or financial difficulties, no matter how temporary or transient they may be, "You must go home "That is how the policy will be expressed and accepted. We must beware of the very dangerous path on which we are proceeding.
      The Home Secretary said on Second Reading that one of the most important points in the introduction of his Bill was to encourage the sense of community and the adoption of immigrants into the institutions of this country. How he could say that and accept the kind of proposals put forward for repatriation, I do not know. Nothing will discourage people from taking part in our institutions and in ordinary life more than the suggestion that they are not welcome. What kind of welcome is it for an immigrant who gets into difficulty if perhaps the very first thing he is told when he

      689
      seeks assistance is not how he can get help from the Social Security Office, not how he can get help to better the education of his family, but that there are provisions in the Bill, introduced by a liberal and humane Home Secretary, to allow him to go home? This cannot work and never will work.
      I hope that the method we have suggested will deal with the problem. Ideally, we should have liked Clause 29 to be removed from the Bill altogether and the arrangements to assist people to go home to be put under the Department of Health and Social Security and extended where necessary simply by regulations to give them a little more flexibility. It would be even better if there were a voluntary organisation concerned with immigrants who wanted to go home.
      There is much talk in the country about the number of immigrants who tell public opinion polls or consumer research organisations, in reply to a questionnaire, that they would like to go home. Those who lay stress on these numbers can only be people with no understanding of first-generation immigrants. I have had experience of first-generation immigrants, having once been an emigrant to South Africa. I know of many British people in South Africa who have been there for 20 or 30 years but have always had a hankering to return to the country of their birth and their youth. That is natural; there is nothing to be ashamed of in it. But the truth is that very few of them do return, and a great proportion of the few who do so very much regret having left the country where they have lived for 25 years.
      Precisely the same applies to immigrants in this country. The first-generation immigrant naturally has an affinity with his own country. It is the feeling of some of them that they do not belong here and never will, which suggests to them that they ought to go back as quickly as possible. I reject the philosophy that people who come to this country to live their lives here and to bring up their children here are not of this country simply because they may have a hankering in their minds to go back and because they may at some stage run into financial or other difficulties.
      This Clause is a monstrosity as far as human relations are concerned, and I
      690
      ask for the support of the House in changing it.
      Sir George Sinclair: I am largely in agreement with the views on repatriation expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). Those views are of course very close to those expressed by the Home Secretary in Committee. The Home Secretary has shown clearly that any payment would be confined to those who, of their own wish and initiative, sought to return to their country of origin, and that decisions would be made on the basis of individual need.
      The Home Secretary made it clear that an individual's wish and need would be the basis of the payment. He also made it clear that he did not accept the idea put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that this Clause should be used as an instrument for the major repatriation of people to their countries of origin.
      I do not believe that this Clause needs changing as suggested in the Amendment. The Clause, in itself, is perfectly clear and the Home Secretary has made clear beyond any doubt whatever what the Government's thinking is behind it. It is confined very strictly to meeting cases where people wish to return and are in need of help to enable them to carry out their wishes. Nor do I believe that this Clause should be supported by the issue of public notices. What the Clause does and the thinking behind it will be well known through all the immigrant organisations who will see to it that they have available to them the record of the Committee and the Bill.
      The Government's thinking on this subject will be clear beyond doubt to the immigrant groups and to the people seeking advice when they are in real difficulties and wish to return home. It is because of the restricted nature of this repatriation Clause that I am happy to support the Clause without the Amendment.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Mendelson: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in an intervention a little time ago, made it appear as if we were discussing a Clause that dealt with the

      691
      availability of free milk for children in large families. He pretended—with a style that I do not normally associate with him—that we could just pass on and regard such an announcement as the equivalent of bringing home to those affected what is in effect an invitation to leave this country.
      Surely we are discussing something quite different from provisions whereby a Government mounts large-scale publicity so that those who are entitled to a certain welfare benefit, but may not be aware of it, are made aware of it. We should not make such wholly inadequate comparisons. We should carry this argument on manfully and in an open manner saying what we mean.
      I do not like the terms being used in this debate. Recently I visited India as a member of an all-party parliamentary delegation organised by the Commonwealth Parliamentary association and, with six Members of this House, was a guest of the Indian Parliament. One of the events organised for us was an open meeting attended by 80 members of the Indian Parliament of all parties from both Houses. We six were answering questions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is not here at the moment; neither is the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who led our delegation. But they would bear witness to what I am about to say. They would confirm that one of the problems we were most profoundly questioned upon at this meeting was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West to this problem of expelling people because they are of a different colour. I am only relating this as a fact that we experienced.
      There were present at the meeting Indian Members of Parliament of all generations, some of them aged between 65 and 70 years of age. Throughout many years of difficulties in the relationship between the people of Britain and India they have maintained a profound respect and admiration for British institutions and for the British sense of fair play. It was deeply moving for us to observe their great worry about the British Government having plans to implement legislation which would mean
      692
      harassment and threat of expulsion to so many people because of the colour of their skin.
      No one who was a member of that delegation can be in any doubt about the harm done by wild speeches and agitation of this kind. This could be multiplied in every other part of the Commonwealth. Attitudes are important here, just as important as words in a Clause. Anyone who thinks that they will be able to use such a Clause to stir up trouble and make demands for the expulsion of people—repatriation is a euphemism—or who encourages those who have racialist feelings in our community—happily, to my knowledge only a minority—is to be condemned.
      I have not yet spoken on this matter in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman. What I hold most against him is not that he has aroused certain feelings which may have been dormant, but that because he is a Privy Councillor and a former senior Minister he has given the stamp of respectability to such feelings. This has been noticed throughout the Commonwealth, and clearly understood, as it would not have been noticed had someone in a less prominent position been engaged in this sort of speech-making.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends are asking here for a minimum. What is at stake is not the attitude of the Home Secretary to enforcing repatriation, expulsion or harassment. I do not think there is any evidence that the view of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, rather than the view of the Home Secretary represents the view of the Conservative Party, and I do not make this charge. Many arguments are taking place within the governing party, and it does not help if we assume that the worst interpretation is the official one. People throughout the country who are most directly concerned with these matters hold that the Home Secretary by introducing this Clause is in danger of giving way to some of the views expressed within his party.
      In the middle 1950s I belonged to a standing conference organised by the then Lord Mayor of Sheffield to consider the problems which might arise from large-scale immigration. People who have

      693
      been members of that conference from the beginning are now telling me that they are disturbed by the introduction of this Clause.
      Sir G. Sinclair: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that when there has been so much doubt about the scope of this idea the insertion of this Clause in the Bill, combined with what the Home Secretary said in Committee, reduces the area of doubt and does a service by taking the matter out of controversy at last?
      Mr. Mendelson: Although I accept the sincerity of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), I cannot accept his logic. The introduction of the Clause by the Home Secretary will not be interpreted in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested. People know that when the Government are wholly unaffected by pressures in a direction in which they do not wish to go they will make no attempt to introduce such matters into legislation. Now that the Home Secretary has decided that he wishes to have the Clause, he should show that none of the suggestions and allegations made against him has any basis by accepting the safeguards which my right hon. and hon. Friends are urging upon him. He has nothing to lose by doing so and much to gain. Anyone with a knowledge of history and of what has happened when it has been suggested that people who are racially different should be invited to go elsewhere will fully understand me when I says that the Home Secretary will be judged more by his attitude on this matter than by anything else he does in his whole administration as Home Secretary.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Throughout our debates in Committee and to a lesser extent, on Report there have been running arguments about the merits of writing immigration procedures into the Statutes or into regulations. The arguments have been based on the necessity to safeguard ourselves against the possibility of a Home Secretary not having the liberal Conservative approach of the present Home Secretary. I am not convinced by the intervention of the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), assurances given by a Home Secretary can never have the weight of a Statute.
      The Home Secretary in Committee used the words to the effect that his Depart-
      694
      ment ould not be saddled with the mechanics. Our argument is that the Clause is totally in contradiction to what the people of this country want. The Home Secretary said that this is a minimal matter and he does not want to be personally involved. By accepting the appeals machinery for family deportation cases the Home Secretary has removed from himself a considerable amount of future anxiety. If this is an incidental matter as the Home Secretary argued in Committee, he does not need to deal with it by the deliberate inclusion in the Bill of a Clause which has become known to people involved in community relations as "the repatriation Clause". The notion of repatriation has been identified with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), so inevitably it is thought that our liberal-minded Home Secretary, in his easy-going way, has pandered to his right hon. Friend by including the Clause.
      I know that the Home Secretary listens to me with close attention, because he knows that what I have to say stems not from theory but from practical knowledge of this subject. As a member of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, I recently visited West Indian homes in London, in company with a Conservative councillor, who persistently pumped West Indian citizens of this country about whether they would like to go home, although his place was to stand back and let me do the questioning. I think this chap got the sack at the recent local authority elections, as so many Tory councillors did.
      The fears of immigrants about this Clause are well-founded. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West worked out in a recent speech that the amount of overseas aid we gave to developing countries would be sufficient to give the immigrants at present in this country £2,000 a knob with which to go home.
      Mr. Powell: It would be laborious and tedious to the House for me always to have to correct the inaccuracies of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). In this case it is not necessary, because the speech in question has been printed and re-printed and is readily available for anyone to satisfy himself of exactly what I said.
      Mr. Bidwell: Indeed, we can satisfy ourselves about many other matters connected with the right hon. Gentleman. We have a file of his speeches on this subject and we can explore them, as some scholar in the future will explore them, and expose the hollowness of his whole concept.
      Most of the hon. Members who represent constituencies with large immigrant communities are on this side of the House, although there are some, including the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, on the Government side of the House. In the end, we do not want the view of the present Home Secretary, or whoever may succeed him; nor even the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the former Home Secretary, who may be returning very shortly to that position.
      When the question of repatriation has been put to people to enable them to return to their land of origin they have said "No dice". It is horrific to think that in the years ahead people could even be thinking in terms of machine guns. We should be thinking about improvement in housing and better opportunities for such people to take their place in British society. This is not just a fear on the part of "do-gooders"; it is an important question which the Home Secretary must have in mind.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have great regard and affection for the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair), but he is wrong about this matter. I suspect that he is wrong because he, too, has regard and affection for the Home Secretary and his judgment is clouded on that account.
      When one reads the Committee proceedings on this Bill one sees the complete difference in philosophy between the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). However, either of those philosophies would fit into the wording of the Clause. If the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were Home Secretary, he could apply his philosophy of repatriation in terms of this provision in the same way as the Home Secretary in the light of the very same wording could apply his philosophy.
      696
      No alteration in the law would be required. All that is required is a change in a Home Secretary's attitude.
      It is true that in present circumstances it is unlikely that the Home Secretary would change the view which he expressed in Committee, but even he might come under pressure if there were a deterioration in race relations, if the war prophesied by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West were to break out in the ghettoes, if a generation of immigrants born here were to press their demand for jobs and if, because of frustration and bitterness, the situation so deteriorated that a Detroit type of situation were to arise. If that were to happen there might possibly then be a right wing backlash which would urge repatriation on a mass scale. In those circumstances even the present Home Secretary might feel that he had to change his attitude. He would not need to change the Statute which gives him the widest possible power to do as he will.
      It is essential that the House agrees to our Amendment which would put a legislative bar on any wider view of the position. Any check involving the tabling of an Order or a debate in the House at ten o'clock at night could crumble under the agitation of a right-wing backlash. That is the sort of situation we must foresee. I accept the Home Secretary's explanation in Committee about his intentions, but if there were a deterioration in race relations in the years ahead we would have to face the situation. I hope the Home Secretary will think again, for I am sure that his heart is in the right place.
      The hon. Member for Dorking must remember the history of this matter. F this involved just the odd family that gets into difficulties and the family wanted to return home and had not the means to do so, the matter could surely be put right by an administrative regulation under the provisions of the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
      Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.
      Mr. Lyon: The Home Secretary does not agree, but there have been a number of occasions when the Supplementary Benefits Commission, after pressure, has changed its attitude about its rules and adopted a wider interpretation. The Commission could surely adapt such rules

      697
      in marginal ways to provide for any case the Home Secretary has in mind.
      The reason that this Clause is in the Bill lies in the pressure of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, which was taken up at the Tory Party conference. This has meant that the Prime Minister has had to commit himself to some kind of repatriation idea. We know that the Home Secretary has interpreted this as narrowly as he can. I suspect that he never wanted to shackle himself with this provision in the first place but, having been shackled, he must put it in the Bill. There are right wing pressure in the Tory Party which must be resisted from all who have at heart good race relations. For that reason we should agree to the legislative bar provided in this Amendment.
      Mr. Maudling: It is fascinating to listen to accounts of how one has reached certain conclusions and to hear all about the pressures under which one has operated and the alternatives one might have considered but did not, and then to compare them with reality. The reality of the situation is that the Clause is in the Bill because I believe it to be a sensible Clause which carries out a commendable purpose. Without such a Clause individual cases could not be helped.
      I welcome this opportunity to say clearly and firmly that the Government do not believe in the concept of large-scale repatriation as an act of policy designed to change the pattern of population in this country. Such a policy is not the intention of the Government and it is not the intention of the Clause. It would be inimical to a policy of better community relations to give the impression that, by the action and policy of Government, our first purpose was to get rid of the people whom we are trying to make welcome here. It is perfectly clear and straightforward.
      There are cases where people who have come to this country as immigrants have tried to settle down here and have found that they are not happy, but have not the means to return to their own country. It seems a commonsense and humane approach to be in a position to help those people. This is what the Clause is designed to do, namely, to give to people who want to go home, because they would be happier there, the chance to do
      698
      so and not to deny them such an opportunity because they have not the money.
      The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) said that this could be covered by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I went into this matter with care since it appeared obvious that that was the way to go about the matter, but the limitations upon such a course are considerable. It was clear to me, after considerable consultation with the Commission, that it could not undertake what we had in mind. The Commission could not go beyond its narrow terms within the Supplementary Benefit Regulations to cover, not who are destitute, but people who are not in a position to pay what often may be a substantial sum to enable them to return home.
      We envisage this being operated as a welfare service. This is why I do not wish to see it operated by the Home Office although the Home Office is nothing like as negative a Department as is sometimes thought. I believe that this should be administered as a social service. We are having discussions with the International Council for Social Services, a body of great eminence, to see whether it can undertake this task for us, and I hope it will be able to do so. They would surely be the right sort of people to handle this matter, but it is a question of looking into individual circumstances and saying that, if people would be happier if they returned home, then they should receive financial assistance for that purpose. We envisage this being operated by a voluntary body.
      The fear which underlies the Amendment and which has been expressed during this discussion is that the scheme will be operated in a totally different fashion. There has been talk of harassment, compulsion, threats and inducements. It would certainly be wrong if somebody went to the employment exchange to ask for help and was told, "You can always go home". I agree with my right hon. Friend that, where facilities are available, they should not be concealed. But that is not a job for the Department of Health and Social Security or for the Department of Employment. They have no intention when people approach them of saying, "Why don't you go home?". What they do is to provide them with the benefits to which they are entitled as a resident of this country and to provide

      699
      them with opportunities of employment. It is certainly not the intention to harass people. I am prepared to consider whether it is necessary to send out some sort of circular to make clear that it is not the intention of any Government Department to harass people.
      6.15 p.m.
      The next point which was made was to examine the situation that would arise if there were a change of Government policy. It may be there could be a change of Home Secretary, which might happen because of exhaustion, accident or some other cause. Supposing there were a change of Government policy, I do not foresee any change of this particular issue. But if any question of compulsion, threat or inducement is to be covered, is the Amendment the right way to go about the matter? I certainly would be loathe to accept this Amendment. If the scheme were run by a voluntary body, then I do not feel it would assist such a body to be saddled with this sort of administrative machinery and complicated arrangement. Such a voluntary body would not want such an unwelcome task. I want to see an informal scheme run by a respectable voluntary charitable body, with the scope and freedom to do what it feels right. If we were to use the words of the Amendment, it would have to ensure that a person applied for help voluntarily. The only alternative to a voluntary arrangement would be a compulsory one, and there are no powers of compulsion to compel families to go away or to apply for assistance. The Government do not possess such powers of compulsion.
      The second is whether such people would be subject to any threat or inducement. Does this mean threat or inducement by Government, or by someone other than Government? I do not think the Government have any power to threaten people. We have no power to compel people to be repatriated, we have no power to threaten anybody nor have we power to induce them to do anything. If we were to take such power, it would be contrary to the Government policy which I have announced and we would certainly be challenged about the matter in Parliament. It would not be left to a
      700
      voluntary organisation to challenge the Government about whether they had acted improperly.
      If there were any threat or inducement from private sources, again it would not be for a voluntary organisation that was giving aid to work the matter out. In those cases any threats could only be illegal and should be reported to the police who would take action under the criminal law. On the question of private inducements given to people to go home, there might be cases where this would be a good thing. This might involve somebody in the home country saying "If you come home we will help you set up a business when you get here." I do not think the Amendment could be operated by a voluntary body.
      I see the purpose and spirit behind the Amendment. I believe that it is designed for a purpose which we have in common, namely that the facilities of the Clause should be made available to those who want to go home on the form of assistance from funds made available by the British taxpayer.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The Home Secretary spoke about the possibility of invoking the criminal law to deal with the possibility of harrassment. Would he elaborate on that? Is there any aspect of the criminal law which would cover that matter?
      Mr. Maudling: I should think that there is a great deal. There is the general law against menacing people. The race relations laws passed by the previous Government make it an offence to do things of that kind. I think that the individual is protected by the criminal law against threats. He would not be protected against threats by a voluntary organisation set up to help people to go home. The Amendment is misguided and would not help those who are trying to help immigrants who want to go home. It would make their task impossible.
      I hope that the House will accept the Clause as it is. I believe that it will serve a useful purpose. If people who have not settled and will not settle cannot go home they will be unhappy, and their unhappiness will spread to others. If they want but cannot afford to go home, then we should help them. If we

      701
      have a sensible organisation which will pick out the deserving cases, it will be a real contribution to the happiness of many people. If we do not have the Clause we shall not be able to do that. Therefore, I hope that the House will accept the Clause as it is.
      Mr. Callaghan: I shall not keep the House long. We cannot respond to the way that the Home Secretary has put his case, desirable though it is. He reminds me of Ernie Bevin in some ways—not in all—who, when shown a resolution, used to say, "It don't matter what it says; it is who says it".
      The Home Secretary's difficulty is that, whilst he seems to be putting forward a perfectly reasonable proposition, which has been accepted by all my hon. Friends, the shadow behind him is responsible for the fear which many people have about this matter.
      The debate has been worth while. We feel that although the Clause is limited to non-patrials—perhaps I might make this point as the Home Secretary did not—we can remove, as the statute will stand, any fear that those who are patrial—that will be the great majority of people already in this country—can be sent or be induced to go home and that funds can be spent on that purpose. In the interests of good race relations, it is important that I should stress that the ambit and extent of the Clause applies only to non-patrials. Nevertheless, our fear arises from the attitude which has characterised some of the support for the Clause. That is why we want the Amendment, although the Home Secretary may feel that it is deficient in some ways.
      If the right hon. Gentleman can make an arrangement with the International Council for Social Services, or some other reputable independent body of that kind, I shall welcome it, although any voluntary arrangement of that kind can be subtracted by a different Administration.
      I suggest that—I do not think that the Home Secretary will differ from me on this point—reflecting on the great tides of history and seeing how Governments have driven from or, indeed, kept people in a particular country against their will—for example, the position of the Jews in the U.S.S.R. or the position on the borders of Pakistan and India today—it is undesirable to give power to any Govern-
      702
      ment to try to influence the movement of people.
      We have legitimate fears about the way that this kind of power could be misused if it got into the wrong hands. Therefore, I ask my hon. Friends, and anyone else who feels inclined to join us, to register that view in the Division Lobbies. We put the Government, or any succeeding Government, on warning that any attempt to misuse this power will be met by strong opposition not only in this House, but by the good sense and humanity of the ordinary men and women of this country who would not want to see persecution, intimidation or harassment of anybody living here. For this reason we shall vote for the Amendment.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division, and Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER having directed that the doors be locked-
      Sir Elwyn Jones(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Owing to physical impediment at the entrance to the Chamber a substantial number of hon. Members were unable to record their votes in the Division which is now in progress. Is that a circumstance which requires the retaking of the votes?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): So far as the Chair is aware, adequate and correct time was allowed for those who wanted to do so to get through to the Division Lobby. The Chair was carefully watching the door in easiest view, and it is bound to express the view at this stage that there were those who were not unduly hurried who perhaps had misjudged the time. That is all that the Chair knows so far.
      Sir Elwyn Jones: If I may continue that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Quite a number of hon. Members were seeking to enter the Chamber to proceed to the Division Lobby. There was physical obstruction, not, of course, of a deliberate character but merely occasioned by the bottleneck of the narrow entrance. I understand that one of your predecessors ruled that in those circumstances it was proper for the vote to be retaken.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair was not aware of any such circumstance, but I think the Chair is aware that at this time on this day of the week there is occasionally some difficulty.
      Mr. Frederick Willey (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My impression was that at least a dozen Members were held on their way to the Division Lobby. It took me an exceptional time to get through.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is very difficult for the Chair to hear the right hon. Gentleman, because of some of the other comments that are being made simultaneously. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be good enough to repeat what he has just said.
      Mr. Willey (seated and covered): I was confirming the impression given by my
      right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) that there were exceptional difficulties in getting through to the Lobby. My estimate is that at least a dozen Members faced the predicament that I did.
      You spoke about supplementary noises, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I understand those noises, they are confirming what I am saying to you.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has had the advantage of being better able to hear without some other noises on this occasion. The Chair is never averse to recalling a Division and, if is the wish of the House, that is what I propose to do.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 220, Noes 241.

      Division No. 382.]

      AYES

      [6.35 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Dempsey, James

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Doig, Peter

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Dormand, J. D.

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

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

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

      Ashley, Jack

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Ashton, Joe

      Driberg, Tom

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, w.)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kerr, Russell

      Barnes, Michael

      Edelman, Maurice

      Kinnock, Neil

      Barnett, Joel

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Lambie, David

      Beaney, Alan

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lamond, James

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Ellis, Tom

      Latham, Arthur

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      English, Michael

      Lawson, George

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Evans, Fred

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bishop, E. S.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Leonard, Dick

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Booth, Albert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Foley, Maurice

      Loughlin, Charles

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

      Foot, Michael

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Buchan, Norman

      Ford, Ben

      McBride, Neil

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

      Forrester, John

      McCartney, Hugh

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      McElhone, Frank

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Freeson, Reginald

      McGuire, Michael

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Cant, R. B.

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mackie, John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ginsburg, David

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Golding, John

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Gourlay, Harry

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Marsden, F.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Hardy, Peter

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Harper, Joseph

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mendelson, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hefter, Eric S.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Horam, John

      Millan, Bruce

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Huckfield, Leslie

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

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Deakins, Eric

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Moyle, Roland

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Janner, Greville

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Murray, Ronald King

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

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ogden, Eric

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      O'Malley, Brian

      Roper, John

      Tomney, Frank

      Oram, Bert

      Rose, Paul B.

      Torney, Tom

      Orbach, Maurice

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Orme, Stanley

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Paget, R. T.

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

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Palmer, Arthur

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

      Wallace, George

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Watkins, David

      Pardoe, John

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Weitzman, David

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Silverman, Julius

      Wellbeloved, James

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred

      Small, William

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Pendry, Tom

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Pentland, Norman

      Spearing, Nigel

      Whitlock, William

      Perry, Ernest G,

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Staltard, A. W.

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Prescott, John

      Steel, David

      Williams, Mrs, Shirley (Hitchin)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Probert, Arthur

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Rankin, John

      Strang, Gavin

      Woof, Robert

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Rees, Mcrlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Summerskril, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Swain, Thomas

      Mr. James Dunn and

      Roberts, R t. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Taverne, Dick

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Drayson, G. B.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      James, David

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Jessel, Toby

      Astor, John

      Farr, John

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Fell, Anthony

      Jopling, Michael

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Kimball, Marcus

      Batsford, Brian

      Fidler, Michael

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bell, Ronald

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Knox, David

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Lane, David

      Biffen, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fowler, Norman

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Blaker, Peter

      Fox, Marcus

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

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

      Longden, Gilbert

      Body, Richard

      Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Loveridge, John

      Boscawen, Robert

      Gardner, Edward

      Luce, R. N.

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gibson-Watt, David

      MacArthur, Ian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      McLaren, Martin

      Braine, Bernard

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Bray, Ronald

      Goodhart, Philip

      McMaster, Stanley

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gorst, John

      Maddan, Martin

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gower, Raymond

      Madel, David

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Gray, Hamih

      Maginnis, John E.

      Bryan, Paul

      Green, Alan

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

      Grylls, Michael

      Marten, Neil

      Buck, Antony

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Maude, Angus

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

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

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Mawby, Ray

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      MaxweM-Hyslop, R. J.

      Channon, Paul

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Chapman, Sydney

      Harrison, Brian ((Maldon)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Moate, Roger

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Havers, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Clegg, Walter

      Hawkins, Paul

      Money, Ernie

      Cooke, Robert

      Hay, John

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Coombs, Derek

      Heseltine, Michael

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hicks, Robert

      More, Jasper

      Cordie, John

      Hiley, Josepn

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Cormack, Patrick

      Holland, Philip

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Costain, A. P.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Mudd, David

      Critchiey, Julian

      Hordern, Peter

      Murton, Oscar

      Crouch, David

      Hornby, Richard

      Neave, Airey

      Curran, Charles

      Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Normanton, Tom

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

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Nott, John

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Hunt, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Dixon, Piers

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Osborn, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Sharpies, Richard

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

      Trew, Peter

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Percival, Ian

      Simeons, Charles

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Waddington, David

      Pounder, Rafton

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

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Soref, Harold

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Speed, Keith

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

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

      Spence, John

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Sproat, Iain

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Stainton, Keith

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Raison, Timothy

      Stewart-Smith, D. G.(Belper)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Redmond, Robert

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Wilkinson, John

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Stokes, John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Sutcliffe, John

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Tapsell, Peter

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

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

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Mr. Keith Speed and

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Mr. Tim Fortescue

      Rost, Peter

      Temple, John M.

    Clause 30

      RETURN OF MENTAL PATIENTS
      Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 27, line 32, at end insert:
      (2) The powers conferred by the enactments specified in subsection (1) above shall not be exercised unless the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of two medical practitioners—

      (a) that the patient is suffering from mental illness; and

      (b) that having regard to all the circumstances of the case it would be in the interests of the patient for the said powers to be exercised;

      and a person who is so ordered to be removed may appeal to an adjudicator against such order.
      I can be brief because this is an Amendment which I moved in Standing Committee in very similar terms. It has been re-drafted only to take account of one technical deficiency which the right hon. Gentleman, quite justifiably, pointed out in our original Amendment. Clause 30 states that if someone is undergoing mental treatment and is a non-patrial he may find himself deported. Of course that is not the word which will be written on the slip of paper, but I assume it will take a very persuasive lawyer to convince the victim and his relatives that that is not what has happened. To digress, I am not sure whether one consequence of this process may not be different from deportation; that is to say, if he is
      708
      deported he can never return to this country unless the order is revoked.
      In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Mr. Dunnett) inquired whether a patient deported under this procedure could ever return, and, if so, whom he would have to satisfy and on what evidence. The right hon. Gentleman then promised to take advice on the matter and he may be able to enlighten us on it in the course of this debate. But whatever the technical consequence, it is not surprising that the immigrant community see this as a process of deportation. I say at once, and not for the first time in the course of these debates, that the offending provision was already in our law in relation to aliens. I confess I was unaware of that until this provision appeared in this Bill, partly no doubt because, in fairness, there is no evidence that in the past it has operated harshly or unfairly.
      In the course of our debates in Standing Committee I took the advice of Mr. David Ennals, formerly a distinguished occupant of the Front Bench and now Director of the National Association for Mental Health. He very fairly confirmed that he knew of no instance where in the past this provision had operated harshly. But the Bill proposes to extend the provision to Commonwealth immigrants and that is likely to produce a very different situation. I say that for four reasons.
      The first reason is that there will be many more people involved. If an alien

      709
      in this country does not wish to become naturalised the probabilities are that he is likely to remain here only so long as he is capable of earning a living. There are many more Commonwealth citizens who now regard this country as their own, who live here with their families and would be likely to remain here even if, unhappily, they are afflicted by ill-health. Probably, too, there is a somewhat higher incidence of mental health among Commonwealth immigrants. The tensions and anxieties of settling down in a strange country are exacerbated where it is necessary to become accustomed to a different way of life and a different cultural background; and those anxieties are not minimised by this Bill or by some of the speeches that have been made in the course of our debates.
      Secondly, I hope it will cause no offence if I say that provision for the mentally sick in many of the developing countries is understandably at an earlier stage than it is in this country; and while I appreciate that under the Bill as drafted the Home Secretary has to be satisfied, before initiating this procedure, that proper arrangements have been made, the immigrant community would like an assurance as to what the Home Secretary would regard as proper arrangements.
      Third, there is the matter raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Jill Knight), who pointed out that there is a great deal to be said for allowing mental patients to remain close to their family. Far more Commonwealth citizens than aliens have their families in this country.
      Fourth—this is perhaps the most important point of all, and it was one to which the Minister assented in Standing Committee—in consequence of the background of the Bill and many of the things which have been said and written, rightly or wrongly many immigrants suspect that the Government are looking for an opportunity to deport them. I am not saying that that is true of the right hon. Gentleman—in fact, I am prepared to say that it is not—but this is a common feeling among the immigrant community. There is a real fear in many circles that this may discourage people from seeking treatment when they clearly require it.
      710
      For these reasons, the Amendment seeks to provide two safeguards. The first is a medical safeguard. I have looked again at what the right hon. Gentleman said in Committee, that two medical signatories would be normal before someone was committed, and that after someone was undergoing treatment, it might be more appropriate to leave it to his own medical superintendent. We are prepared to discuss that. I see the force of it, although many patients and their families do not have complete confidence in the judgment of a single medical superintendent. That is understandable, when his word stands between the patient and his release. They might prefer to see the signature of one medical practitioner who stands outside the situation.
      The second safeguard which we seek to provide is that this procedure shall operate only where it is in the patient's best interests. That is simply a recognition that we are dealing with human beings and not just with problems. Finally, we seek to provide some form of appeal. In Committee, the right hon. Gentleman was inclined to agree that some appeal procedure was desirable, although he thought that it should not lie with an adjudicator. We do not quarrel with that view, although we have kept in this provision until we heard how his own mind was working.
      It is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman approached this with his usual fairness and open-mindedness, and it is not in any sense a political issue. He undertook to consult the Secretary of State for Social Services, and if he requires further time for consultation, we will not seek to press him for an answer tonight. But we take this opportunity to inquire how his consultations are proceeding.
      Mr. Maudling: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Archer) for the way in which he has moved this Amendment. As he said, this is not a new power but only an extension to Commonwealth immigrants of a power which has worked for aliens. From what he said, it seems to have worked satisfactorily in the past. People who are removed on this basis can come back, but no-one has ever been known to do so. The cases would be few and far between and

      711
      the obvious intention is to provide for the best interests of the individual. The Bill was, therefore, a sensible extension of the existing law.
      But hon. Members said in Standing Committee that this might be regarded by Commonwealth immigrants as something which might be used to harass them and that it might dissuade people from taking mental treatment if they deserved it. This seems to me a very sound point. I undertook to consult the Secretary of State for Social Services. I am sorry to say that those consultations have not been completed. My first idea did not work and we must think of another.
      I still do not like the Amendment, although the hon. and learned Gentleman has corrected the technical matter of the definition of mental illness. I still think that one should provide for the patient's own medical practitioner to sign a certificate. I do not like an appeal to an adjudicator, because he would not be the right person in those circumstances. I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself recognised that.
      I must apologise to the House that I have not been able to produce an alternative scheme. While continuing my consultations, I will undertake to provide some arrangements at a later stage which will ensure that the Secretary of State can take no action unless it is demonstrated by medical advice that to do so would be in the best interests of the patient. The interests of the individual must be paramount. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be satisfied with that assurance.
      Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 33

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 72, in page 29, line 42 at end insert:
      ( ) It is hereby declared that, except as otherwise provided in this Act, a person is not to be treated for the purposes of any provision of this Act as ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands at a time when he is there in breach of the immigration laws.—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Schedule 1

      REGISTRATION AS CITIZEN BY REASON OF RESIDENCE, CROWN SERVICE ETC.
      Amendment made: No 73, in page 33, line 35 leave out from 'that' to end of line 46 and insert:
      ' at the date of his application to be registered he had throughout the last five years or, if application is made after July 1976, at all times since before the end of July 1971 been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom without being subject, by virtue of any law relating to immigration, to any restriction on the period for which he might remain '.
      No. 74, in page 34, line 2 leave out 'or a deportation order is' and insert 'is at the date of his application'.
      No. 75, in line 6, after 'person', insert 'when he applies to be so registered by virtue of paragraph 2 above'.
      No. 76, in line 8, leave out 'and until' and insert 'before the date of his application'.
      No. 77, in line 10, leave out 'notifies' and insert 'has notified'.—[Mr. Maudling.]

    Schedule 2

      ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS AS TO CONTROL ON ENTRY, ETC.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 146, in page 38, line 27, leave out 'legal' and insert 'criminal'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I believe that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 147, in page 38, line 28, leave out '(including' and insert 'or'.
      Mr. Davis: We alluded to this matter in Committee. This part of the Schedule provides that, if an immigration officer finds certain documents, he may detain them and that, if he considers that they may be needed in connection with any legal proceedings, he can detain them until he is satisfied that they will not be so needed. I took the view in Committee—I see no reason for altering it—that this is a very wide and somewhat untidy piece of draftsmanship.
      It was clear that what the Secretary of State intended was that the documents which would be required were those for use in connection with proceedings which

      713
      were the subject of appeal, or possibly for criminal proceedings. That of course is not what the Schedule says. It refers to "any" proceedings, which could cover civil proceedings in which the appellant might be a party or a witness. It would invest an immigration officer with a discretion which is unnecessary and far too wide.
      The Minister of State said in Committee:
      "I think that there is some point in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should like to consider very carefully what he has said and to see whether the adjudicator might not have the power to order production of the documents."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 27th May, 1971; c. 1616.]
      That relates to the other Amendment, but he conceded that there was some purpose in what I was saying.
      He gave no undertaking to meet the point, but I hope that it will not cause the Government any embarrassment to define the provision more carefully. This would clarify the situation and assist the immigration officer.
      7.00 p.m.
      Mr. Sharples: The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) is correct in saying that I promised in Committee to look at this matter with the Solicitor-General. I have done so, and I admit that there is some force in the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      It is necessary that these documents should be retained, and that there should be an absolute power to retain them where criminal proceedings are likely to follow. However, I accept that the Clause as drafted is probably wider than is necessary. I have not had much time to consider the point, and I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that I accept the principle of it but would like to look at the drafting more carefully.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The Minister has stated the position moderately, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 158, in page 38, line 29, at end insert:
      Provided that the person producing such documents may apply to the appropriate adjudicator at any time after 21 days of such
      714
      detention for an order that the documents should be released to him.
      This Amendment is designed to provide some relief to an immigrant where an immigration officer, perhaps wrongfully or mistakenly, detains documents for an indefinite period. As drafted, this provision would enable an immigration officer, if he considers that the documents may be needed in connection with legal proceedings, to detain them indefinitely. As I submitted when we debated this matter in Committee, there could be a slip, some bureaucratic mistake, and the immigrant would be denied the opportunity of making a protest to seek redress from any other quarter.
      The Amendment would enable an application to be made to the adjudicator, who could determine whether there was substance in the immigration officer's hope that the application would be rejected, or he could find that the documents should no longer be detained. This is closely parallel to the situation which exists in the courts. I hope that the Minister will be as sympathetic towards this Amendment as he was to the last.
      Mr. Sharples: I think I have largely met the point that the hon. Gentleman raises through the acceptance of the principle of his previous Amendment. Having accepted that principle, we are here considering the case where documents are required in connection with criminal proceedings. I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that I cannot be as forthcoming on this occasion, because I do not think it would be right for the adjudicator to decide in cases of this kind. Having narrowed the gap considerably, as we have done, I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment.
      A mendment negatived.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: I beg to move Amendment No. 161, in page 40. line 23, at end insert:
      ' unless when he arrived in the United Kingdom the falsity of any documents required to be produced by him was not reasonably apparent '.
      I raised this matter in Committee, and I would not be raising it again if further information had not reached me. In fact, such information did reach me, and only this week.
      This point covers the right of the immigration officer to require a carrier to return a person to his or her country of

      715
      origin where it is decided that the person is in breach of the regulations and, therefore, should not be allowed to enter or remain here.
      My Amendment would at least give the earlier reasonable protection, and the case which has recently come to my attention shows the need for the Amendment. This case emphasises the difficulty that could arise from the Schedule in its present form. One of the nation's main shipping companies ran a cruise from Southampton and took on board among the passengers a lady who was born in Trinidad, who was in possession of a valid Trinidad passport and who had originally entered this country by another shipping line from Las Palmas. She stated on arrival that she would stay with friends and that she wanted to be allowed in as a visitor. Her passport was marked:
      "Allowed permission to remain in this country for six months as a visitor."
      It appeared to the authorities that she was in possession of sufficient funds and that she intended to do nothing other than stay as a visitor for that period.
      She joined the cruise from Southampton on 7th May. The carriers naturally looked at her documents and were satisfied that the duration of the cruise would enable her to return to Britain within the six months which she had been allowed. They fully believed that she was in possession of proper documents.
      The cruise terminated at Southampton on 21st May when, as with the other passengers, this lady's documents were re-examined by immigration officers. She was refused permission to land, and for good reason. Indeed, the immigration officers said that they had received information that the lady had obtained employment at a children's hospital in Oxford during the period of her permission to stay in this country, and they therefore said that she could not be allowed to remain here, being in breach of the conditions of her entry. I make no complaint about that.
      The cruise line had only taken this lady from Southampton on a cruise and had returned her to Southampton, believing that she was in possession of valid documents. The line was then required to return her to her country of origin, which obviously presented difficulty to
      716
      the company because it had not been the original line which brought her here. Had it been a smaller firm it might have had to employ another carrier to take her to her country of origin at the expense of the smaller cruise line.
      The shipping line made an appeal to the Southampton immigration office, and on being advised that the office was unable to alter its decision, the company approached the Home Office which, while sympathetic, upheld the decision of the Southampton office. In these circumstances the shipping line had no way of dealing with the matter other than to ensure that the lady was kept in security until it could arrange for one of its ships which was sailing in the direction of her home country to take her there.
      The shipping line had no reason to know in the first instance that this lady was other than a bona fide passenger in possession of documents giving her a right to stay in this country for six months as a visitor. It had no way of knowing that this lady had broken the terms of that right to enter Britain, and yet, at the end of the day, it was required to return her to her country of origin when, on all grounds, it surely should not have been required to carry out any responsibility of this kind.
      Shipping lines that run cruises from this country carry all sorts of foreign nationals on non-United Kingdom passports. It could easily create a dangerous precedent if the onus were placed upon the carrier without giving him reasonable opportunity of satisfying himself that the travel documents appeared to be in order and if, because of circumstances over which he had no control, at the end of the day he would be required to carry that person at his expense back to his country of origin.
      I do not want to repeat all that I said in Committee, but this is a matter in which there has been a move in the right direction in that the carrier is no longer required to pay for the board and lodging of a suspect immigrant while investigations are taking place. Carriers are still, however, required to bear both the physical and the financial responsibility of returning that person to his country of origin. But all right hon. and hon. Gentlemen will realise that in this particular circumstance—I have no

      717
      knowledge that this is an isolated case—this shows that a carrier can get into difficulties and be required to return a person to a country with which the carrier has no contact and to which he runs no services.
      Therefore, I again ask whether we cannot put what appears to be a reasonable wording into this particular requirement to make certain that the immigration officer can require the master of the vessel to' return the person to his country of origin only where it is apparent to a reasonable person that the travel documents of the person are not valid. Only in those circumstances should the immigration officer be able to require the carrier to carry a person back to his country of origin at the carrier's cost.
      Mr. Sharples: As my hon. Friend said, this is a matter which we considered in Standing Committee. Since the Committee proceedings have finished, I have considered very carefully the powerful arguments he then put forward. However, I am about to disappoint him. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the Amendment, in spite of his powerful arguments today.
      As my hon. Friend rightly said, until 1969 the carrier also had to bear the cost of detaining the person ashore, but this burden was removed by Section 21 of the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969, and by the Aliens Order, 1969. That was absolutely right because the costs of detention were costs over which the carrying company probably had very little control. I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the difficult case to which he referred. But he will probably agree that a case of that kind is pretty exceptional. The normal method by which carrier companies return people to their home country is to place them in seats which would otherwise be unused. The real cost to the carrying company, in very many cases one of the airline companies, is very slight. In the majority of cases, it is probably only the cost of the meals which the person has while on board.
      If, however, carrying companies were to have to charge the full cost to the Government, which they would do if they were not required themselves to carry a person in these circumstances at their expense, the cost to the Government
      718
      would be very much greater than that to the carrying company.
      I have considered very carefully my hon. Friend's arguments. I realise the feeling amongst certain carrying companies. I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.
      A mendment negatived.
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, Amendment No. 78, in page 41, line 15, leave out from 'may' to end of line 28 and insert:

      (a) give the captain of that ship or aircraft directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or

      (b) give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or

      (c) give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or territory so specified, being either—

      (i) a country of which he is a national or citizen; or

      (ii) a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or

      (iii) a country or territory in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or

      (iv) a country or territory where he was engaged as a member of the crew of the ship or aircraft which he arrived in the United Kingdom to join; or

      (v) a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.

      7.15 p.m.
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker: With this Amendment the House can discuss Amendment No. 141, in line 25, leave out sub-paragraph (3). Government Amendments Nos. 79 to 83; Amendment No. 142, in page 42 line 13, leave out subparagraph (3), and Government Amendments Nos. 85, 86 and 90.
      Mr. Sharples: In Standing Committee the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) asked whether I would give an interpretation off the cuff of paragraph 12(3) of Schedule 2, and for what I now find very good reasons, I declined to do so, because the purpose of these Amendments is to spell out what was previously referred to by reference. At the time, I said that if one spelt it

      719
      out in detail it would considerbly lengthen the Bill. The Amendments now before us considerably lengthen it. Nonetheless, in view of the difficulty with which anyone would have been faced—certainly as I was in the interpretation of Section 12(3), it is right that this should be done. I have met the point raised rightly and properly by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He said that he would look into this matter, and he has done so. Possibly his temerity at having to come here on Report stage to be challenged in the same way persuaded him to do so. But he has denied me one thing. I now feel that I shall not be able to enter sub-paragraph (3) to "This England".
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 79, in page 41, line 42, after 'person', insert '(not being patrial)'.
      No. 80, in line 43, leave out from 'aircraft' to 'and' in line 45.
      No. 81, in page 42, line 2, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
      No. 82, in line 6, leave out 'the' and insert 'an'.
      No. 83, in page 42, Schedule 2, leave out lines 8 to 16 and insert:
      an immigration officer may—

      (a) give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrived directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or

      (b) give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or

      (c) give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or territory so specified, being either—

      (i) a country of which he is a national or citizen; or

      (ii) a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or

      (iii) a country in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or

      (iv) a country or territory in which he was engaged as a member of the crew of the ship or aircraft in which he arrived in the United Kingdom; or

      720

      (v) a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.

      13A.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that directions might be given in respect of a person under paragraph 12 or 13 above, but that it is not practicable for them to be given or that, if given they would be ineffective, then the Secretary of State may give to the owners or agents of any ship or aircraft any such directions in respect of that person as are authorised by paragraph 12(2)(c) or 13(2)(c).
      (2) Where the Secretary of State may give directions for a person's removal in accordance with sub-paragraph (1) above, he may instead give directions for his removal in accordance with arrangements to be made by the Secretary of State to any country or territory to which he could be removed under sub-paragraph (1).
      (3) The costs of complying with any directions given under this paragraph shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State.
      13B. A person in respect of whom directions are given under any of paragraphs 12 to 13A above may be placed, under the authority of an immigration officer, on board any ship or aircraft in which he is to be removed in accordance with the directions.—[Mr. Sharples.]
      Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 84, in page 42, line 21, at end insert:
      Provided that such person may not be detained for a period in excess of seven days unless—

      (a) a justice of the peace is by written information on oath satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so detaining him; or

      (b) in Scotland, a sheriff, or a magistrate or justice of the peace, having jurisdiction in the place where such person is detained, is by evidence on oath so satisfied.

      The provisions of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 empower an immigration officer to examine a person who has arrived in Britain for the purpose of determining whether he is patrial and, if not, whether he should be allowed to enter Britain, and also to decide whether a medical examination is necessary and to have such person medically examined.
      The provisions of paragraph 14 of Schedule 2 enable anyone who is required to submit to such an examination to be detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending his examination and pending the decision to give or refuse him leave to enter.
      There are, however, no provisions which in any way limit the time for that detention. It is theoretically possible for the detention to continue for a very long

      721
      time. It is not only theoretical. The Minister of State, when dealing with an Amendment on this matter in Committee, said this:
      "I agree that there have been cases where detention has been much longer than I would have wished …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B; 27th May, 1971, c. 1622.]
      Where a person is in custody and charged with an offence, the law requires that he should come up periodically before a magistrates' court which will decide whether he should continue to be held in custody. We sought in Committee to insert a similar provision in relation to this power so that a person detained must be brought up before a magistrates' court every seven days, so that the magistrates might satisfy themselves that continued detention is necessary.
      The Minister of State, in reply, suggested that a magistrates' court is not normally conversant with the complexities of the administration of immigration control, and at first was even inclined to take the view that this was not a matter which should be dealt with otherwise than by representation by Members of Parliament to the Home Office Minister concerned—a song we heard only too often in Committee, but which I am glad to say has been somewhat abandoned since the Government had second thoughts at this stage of the Bill.
      However, at the end of the debate the Minister of State said that he would give most careful consideration to the argument which had been advanced. On that assurance we did not press the matter to a Division.
      We, too, have reconsidered the matter in the light of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that magistrates' courts do not understand the complexities of immigration control. We have found that in the very next paragraph—paragraph 15—the Government themselves provide that certain people can be arrested without warrant but that in other cases those concerned must go before a justice of the peace and satisfy him
      "by written information on oath … that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that a person liable to be arrested … is to be found on any premises".
      There are similar provisions relating to Scotland.
      722
      In those cases the Government are apparently satisfied that the magistrates' courts in the two countries have sufficient knowledge to deal with these matters. It is difficult to understand why they are not similarly satisfied on this problem.
      In the Amendment we seek to insert in paragraph 14 the precise words in paragraph 15. We think that the Government should be ready to accept that their own wording is appropriate.
      Mr. Sharples: I have given very careful consideration to this point, as I undertook in Standing Committee to do. I was concerned about the fact that people could be held in detention for very long periods. One case was drawn to my attention on the very morning when we discussed this matter in Committee.
      In the time which has been available I have not been able to bring forward Government Amendments to meet the point as I would have wished. This is a matter of considerable importance. For the reasons I gave in Committee. I do not think that the magistrates' court is the appropriate place. We are not dealing with the same kind of situation as that dealt with in paragraph 15, which is the normal case of an application for a warrant. We are dealing with matters of the relationship with people who may be held in detention in connection with immigration matters.
      As I said in Committee, probably no one knows better than the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the considerations which may have to be taken into account in dealing with such matters. The solution I have in mind is that there should be able to be a reference possibly to an adjudicator. That would be a better solution. An adjudicator is someone who is used to dealing with immigration matters like this.
      I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw the Amendment on the firm assurance that I will do my best to introduce Amendments in another place to meet the point, although not necessarily with the kind of procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in mind. I hope that this will meet the point, because I do not think that the magistrates' court is satisfactory, although I accept that some form of independent decision should be given in such cases.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. John Hall(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the Division was first called and hon. Members came to the Division Lobbies they were met with statements that the Division was off. Those statements were made by a number of people and in consequence those Members who were approaching the Lobby with the intention of voting went elsewhere. As a result, it is quite likely that a certain number of Members who would have voted will find themselves shut out of the Division Lobbies. May I ask under what circumstances the Division was first called and then statements were made that it was off, thus misleading many right hon. and hon. Members?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What has some bearing on that point is the question of who made the alleged statements and whether they came from official sources. No reference as to who made such statements has been made to the Chair.
      Mr. David James(seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I was told that the Division was off by a colleague whose name I still do not know.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members make comments to one another during a Division, but the Chair cannot take them as official.
      Mr. Patrick Cormack(seated and covered): I, too, was accosted by a Member whose name I could give but will not.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: That does not help the Chair.
      Mr. John Hall (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. It appeared that the servants of the House were also under the impression at the time that the
      Division was not on. The impression was conveyed to those coming into the Lobbies that the Division was off.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair has not yet been given any information upon which it could act.
      Mr. Charles Pannell(seated and covered): On a point of order. The behaviour of the servants of the House has been prayed in aid of the arguments of hon. Members opposite. It is completely out of order to refer to their behaviour. In any case, Members are responsible for their action or inaction, or for whether they are asleep or awake.
      Mr. John Hall (seated and covered): Further to that point of order. I mentioned the servants of the House in the way that I did, Mr. Deputy Speaker, only in response to your request for information about the official sources from which the statement might have come.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The official sources are still not clear to the Chair.
      Dame Irene Ward(seated and covered): When I arrived at the Division Lobby to vote there was a great conglomeration of hon. Members of all kinds standing in a block. I thought to myself, "I shall have to make a dive through this". I asked, "What's all this about?" Nobody seemed to know anything. Various people—I did not pay attention to who they were—all said that the Division was off. Certainly the entrance just before we go in to the Division Lobby was blocked by people. I do not know whether it was deliberate or whether they were all trying to find out what was going on. But it was very trying.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Lady's difficulties, but she must appreciate the Chair's difficulties. The confusion has not helped the Chair.
      The House having divided: Ayes 139, Noes 192.

      Division No. 383.]

      AYES

      [7.28 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Beaney, Alan

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Allen, Scholefield

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Cant, R. B.

      Ashley, Jack

      Bidwelt, Sydney

      Carmichael, Neil

      Atkinson, Norman

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Barnes, Michael

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

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Barnett, Joel

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Stanley

      Cohen, Stanley

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Concannon, J. D.

      Horam, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jannrer, Greville

      Pendry, Tom

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pentland, Norman

      Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Prescott, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

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

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Rankin, John

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Delargy, H. J.

      Latham, Arthur

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

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lawson, George

      Roper, John

      Dempsey, James

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Driberg, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Sheldon, Robert (Asnton-under-Lyne)

      Dunn, James A.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Dunnett, Jack

      McElhone, Frank

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Edelman, Maurice

      McGuire, Michael

      Small, William

      Edwards, Robert (Button)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackie, John

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      English, Michael

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Strang, Gavn

      Evans, Fred

      McNamara, J. Kevin

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

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Tomney, Frank

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersficld, E.)

      Tomey, Tom

      Foley, Maurice

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Foot, Michael

      Marsden, F.

      Watkins, David

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Forrester, John

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Whitehead, Philip

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Moyle, Roland

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Mr. John Golding and

      Hardy, Peter

      Orbach, Maurice

      Mrs. Doris Fisher

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Dixon, Piers

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Elliot, capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Hunt, John

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Astor, John

      Farr, John

      James, David

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Fell, Anthony

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Baker, H. K. (Banff)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Jessel, Toby

      Batsford, Brian

      Fidler, Michael

      Jopling, Michael

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bell, Ronald

      Fowler, Norman

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Fox, Marcus

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

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

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Biffen, John

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Kirk, Peter

      Boscawen, Robert

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Knox, David

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Lane, David

      Boycl-Carpentcr, Rt. Hn. John

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Bray, Ronald

      Goodhew, Victor

      Loveridge, John

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Gorst, John

      Luce, R. N.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Gray, Hamish

      Mac Arthur, Ian

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

      Green, Alan

      McCrindlei, R. A.

      Buck, Antony

      Grylls, Michael

      McLaren, Martin

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Channon, Paul

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Maddan, Martin

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Madel, David

      Clegg, Walter

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Maginnis, John

      Cooke, Robert

      Hasethurst, Alan

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Coombs, Derek

      Hawkins, Paul

      Marten, Neil

      Cooper, A. E.

      Hay, John

      Maudling, Rt, Hn. Reginald

      Cordle, John

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Mawby, Ray

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Heseltine, Michael

      Maxwell-Hystop, R. J,

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hicks, Robert

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Costain, A. P.

      Hiley, Joseph

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Crouch, David

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Moate, Roger

      Curran, Charles

      Holland, Philip

      Molyneaux, James

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Montgomery, Fergus

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

      Hordern, Peter

      More, Jasper

      Dean, Paul

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Mudd, David

      Ridsdale. Julian

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

      Neave, Airey

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Normanton, Tom

      Rost, Peter

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Nott, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Waddington, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Sharpies, Richard

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Osborn, John

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

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Skelton, William (Clapham)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Soref, Harold

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Pink, B. Bonner

      Speed, Keith

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Spence, John

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Sproat, Iain

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

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

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Proudtoot, Wilfred

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Younger, Hn. George

      Raison, Timothy

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Redmond, Robert

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Mr. Hector Monro and

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Tebbitt, Norman

      Mr. Tim Fortescue.

      Amendments made: No. 85, in page 42, line 23, leave out '13' and insert '13A'.
      No. 86, in line 37, after 11', insert 'or 13B'.
      No. 87, in page 44, line 30, leave out: 'if any of them may not'
      and insert:
      ' unless the owners or agents have reasonable cause to believe all of them to '.—[Mr Sharples.]
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 45, line 4, leave out 'passengers' and insert:
      ' persons on board '
      I understand that it will be convenient to discuss with it Government Amendment No. 89.
      Paragraph 20(1) of the Schedule requires the captain of a ship or aircraft to present his passengers for examination by immigration officers either on the ship or aircraft or under approved arrangements ashore. The effect of the Amendment is to oblige the captain also to present for examination any members of his crew who are outside the scope of Clause 8(1).
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: No. 89, in page 45, line 7, after 'officer', insert: ', or they are members of the crew who may lawfully enter the United Kingdom without leave by virtue of section 8(1) of this Act'.—[Mr. Sharples.]
      Mr. Clinton Davis: I beg to move Amendment No. 159, in page 49, line 2 leave out from 'surety' to first 'of' in line 4.
      728
      The very short point I want to make is that it seems that there is a duty on the part of the surety to convey the information that the person is likely to break the condition, and he must also provide information that he desires to be relieved of his obligations as a surety. I believe that the first part of the paragraph is sufficient. The alternative might be that the provisions should not be construed conjectively. There is an unnecessary burden on the surety. It is sometimes difficult to act as a surety, and unnecessary burdens should not be placed on such people. If a surety simply wishes to be relieved of his obligation as a surety, that should be enough.
      Mr. Sharples: Paragraph 26(1)(b), which the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend, reproduces the effect of paragraph 9(1)(b) of Schedule I to the Immigration Appeals Act, 1969, which in turn was based on Section 23(1)(b) of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, relating to bail in ordinary criminal proceedings. The wording of the equivalent passage in all those provisions is identical, and includes the words which the Amendment would delete. This would not be the right place to make a fundamental alteration in respect of bail of this kind. I hope that in view of my explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 90, in page 50, line 11, after 'under', insert 'paragraph 8 of.—[Mr. Sharples.]

    Schedule 3
      SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO DEPORTATION
      Amendment made: No. 91, in page 51, line 7 leave out 'and (b)'.—[Mr. Sharpies.]
    Schedule 6

      REPEALS
      Amendment made: No. 92, in page 55, line 6, column 3 at end insert 'Section 2(1).—[Mr. Sharpies.]
      7.47 p.m.
      Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      This is the last stage of the Bill's progress through the House until we reach the consideration of Amendments from another place. I share the feeling of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides that we have lived with the Bill for a very long time. I have almost grown to feel that I shall miss it when it passes on.
      The Bill's main purpose was described by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his opening speech on Second Reading. It was to replace by a single, comprehensive and definitive Statute the existing temporary and piecemeal legislation governing the entry of foreign nationals and Commonwealth citizens. In so doing, we have safeguarded the rights of those entitled both by birth and by parentage to come here. We have also intentionally retained an element of discrimination in favour of the citizen who comes from the Commonwealth whether to work here or as a visitor, or for any other purpose. We have retained that discrimination whether he comes from the old or the new Commonwealth.
      The Committee stage was pretty long by the standards of the House. The discussion throughout was constructive and a number of useful suggestions were made from both sides. These were carefully considered, and we have been able to include quite a number in the Amendments which the House has been discussing. As my right hon. Friend and I have said at various points during the Report stage, further Amendments will be included when the Bill reaches an-
      730
      other place to meet points which were made by hon. Members on both sides and which were very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and myself.
      The most important changes made in the Bill since it was introduced are those designed to make absolutely certain that the position of those already here and accepted for settlement will not be prejudiced in any way. There is no question of those who are settled here having their rights taken away from them. It is for every one of us, no matter where we sit in this House or what interest we represent, to make absolutely clear, if we have the interests of the community truly at heart, the fact that those who are settled here are not affected by the Bill. Let us be clear that there are those who are trying to make out that this Bill is a vehicle for harassment of immigrants already here or to come. They do no service to the cause which they purport to represent.
      I want to say a few words about registration with the police, which has not come up on Report. We had a very full discussion on this in Committee. It would not be realistic for me to pretend that no doubts remain. I would like to say how grateful I was to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), whom I see on the Front Bench opposite, for letting me see an advance copy of the constructive memorandum put forward by the Police Federation on this subject.
      The fact that I had it early—the hon. Member took the trouble to send it to me by hand—enabled me to give careful consideration to what the Federation had to say. I have had time to examine the alternative proposals which the Federation put forward and I have come to the very firm conclusion that neither of the alternatives which it suggests would be workable or would provide the necessary degree of control. The first—registration at the port of entry—would present real difficulties, not the least of which would be the necessity, which the Federation accepted, of having to restrict the entry of those not having the right of abode in this country to a limited number of entry points where registration facilities existed. This would certainly mean fewer points of entry than those envisaged in the Bill.

      731
      The second alternative put forward by the Federation was registration at employment exchanges. This is a subject which we considered in considerable detail during the Committee stage. There is no need for me to put forward those arguments again except to say that I do not see this, for the reasons I gave then, as an effective alternative means of control. If we look at the existing situation for the alien, I do not think there is any doubt—and this has not been disputed on either side in all of our discussions—that the system that we have has worked very well. At the moment there are 170,000 aliens, including a large number of people of non-European descent, who are registered with the police.
      It is a tribute to the work of the police that we hardly ever have any complaint about the working of the system. I do not see that there is any real problem in adding to the present number of those required to register a small additional number of Commonwealth citizens, making it quite clear that this does not apply to those already here. One point which emerged clearly, and I think it was accepted in Committee, was that whatever system of registration we adopted it should be the same for both those Commonwealth citizens and those aliens who were required to register. There was no serious suggestion that there should be two separate systems.
      It is not the registration that matters so much; it is the fact that in the final event, when something goes wrong, it is the police, and only the police, who can take the necessary action. When something goes wrong, when someone deliberately or by mistake fails to register or is suspected of having evaded controls, tension can be aroused, and it is then that there has to be direct contact between the policeman and the person being asked whether he has registered. No matter what system of registration we have, it is, in the last event, the policeman who has to do the work for us. In many respects, the police have a great deal of difficult and sometimes embarrassing work to do on our behalf. We respect them for it and for the way in which they do it.
      There is a positive advantage in the newcomer to this country having early
      732
      contact with the police in the normal course of events. He may well find that the relationship here between the police and the public is very different from that existing in the country from which he has come.
      One other matter I have to deal with is the time of the coming into operation of the Measure. Part IV, dealing mainly with the welfare provisions, comes into operation upon Royal Assent, together with Clause 35(3) dealing with provisions for the prosecution of certain offences. Clause 25, which creates the new offence of assisting illegal entry, comes into force one month after Royal Assent. All the remaining provisions come into force on a single day to be appointed by my right hon. Friend. It is clear that this cannot be until several months after Royal Assent. In the meantime, the existing system of control is continued under powers contained in Clause 35(4).
      The enemy of good community relations—and, after all, this is a Bill which to a large extent is about community relations—is fear. For the immigrant it is fear of discrimination in jobs, housing, schools and so on, the things which affect him most closely. Already both sides of the House have done a great deal to try to remove this real fear from the immigrant who has settled here and whom we accept as a full member of our community.
      But let us not forget that there is in certain areas, fear among the indigenous population which it would be foolish to ignore or reject, of a return to large-scale and uncontrolled immigration. This Bill, by finally settling the question of immigration control for, I hope, many years to come, will of itself make a positive contribution to communal harmony, and I recommend it to the House.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Until the early 1950s, despite the influx of Jewish refugees at the turn of this century and in the 1930s from the hateful excesses of German Nazism, and despite the Polish soldiers in 1946, we in this country have always thought of ourselves as a source of emigrants rather than a receiver of immigrants. It is, therefore, not surprising that, as a nation, we have made heavy weather, with much heart-burning, of instituting a means of control of immigration, or indeed have got round to it in the first

      733
      instance. Very few people have been right on this. It could have been easy only for the relatively few on either extreme—the "everybody outs" or the "everybody ins"—it is easy to be logical if one has a simple answer.
      There are no simple answers for the Commonwealth if only because the heavy hand of history clouds the issues. As witness of this I invite the House to read the debates on the British Nationality Act, 1947, 24 years ago—it might be a hundred years ago judging by the sentiments that underlay a great deal of what was said by both sides.
      There had to come a time when the Government of the day had to look at immigration. To illustrate the difference between the two sides, our General Election manifesto said:
      "We now propose to review the law relating to citizenship."
      This indeed has been the great difference between the two sides throughout our discussions. Our review of nationality and citizenship would have been on a Commonwealth basis, as was the earlier review of 1947 which was carried out by the then Permanent Under-Secretary to the Home Office with the then independent Commonwealth countries sitting round the table and evolving a common policy. If Commonwealth countries do not wish to discuss immigration, either with this country or with any other country, that is their own business, but they must discuss citizenship.
      I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say earlier today that discussions on citizenship had not been wanted by the Commonwealth countries. I was under the impression that under the convention of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences there has to be common agreement to discuss immigration, but that citizenship is different from immigration. It may be that the disagreement on the parliamentary question earlier today is indicative of the disagreement we have had all the way through our discussions on the Bill.
      Our main criticism of the Bill is that it attempts to change immigration control without looking at citizenship. The Short Title says:
      "Amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law …".
      734
      It should have been the other way round. The Bill deals with citizenship only because the Government was driven to do so by the need to change the law on immigration.
      Then there is the foolishness of patriality. If, as the Home Secretary says, since the war privileges have been given to white descendants of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, that is one thing, but to enshrine expediency as a pillar of immigration law is another, and in our view wrong. I agree that a country has the right to pass on its citizenship for whatever period it wishes if it so desires after discussion, but citizenship should have a meaning in terms of duties and privileges and, given what has been done by the Bill, this would still be possible.
      Patriality is an immigration control concept which is linked to citizenship. In Committee we have removed for Commonwealth citizens —and there is no sign of it coming back—the grandfather element from Clause 2(1)(c) for Commonwealth citizens. Patriality meant here that we had decided to choose between certain Commonwealth citizens. That is different from choosing between citizens who hold our citizenship. By that provision we were saying that certain Commonwealth citizens in, for example. New Zealand, being descendants from a person originating from this country, were to be treated differently on entering this country. This was offensive to the Maoris and to many New Zealanders. But there will be trouble from this concept of patriality. This is not a definitive Bill, as it was claimed to be by the Minister of State. This is not the end of the matter.
      Our other concern has been with the work permits—the terms of which we shall eventually be told—which arise from the Bill. The door to full understanding of the implications of this in terms of numbers will be opened only when we have details of the new system which is legally provided for in the Bill.
      On reading all the material I have collected over the years on this subject, the Prime Minister's speech before the General Election and the Conservative Party manifesto, I can only say that there is a constant mixing-up of "work permit" and "employment voucher". These are essentially different, but there is confusion all the way through. In

      735
      1962 there were employment vouchers for Commonwealth citizens which were a form of immigration control and gave rights to wives and families, with a classification of type. There were employment vouchers A, B and, at one time C, with proportions for various Commonwealth countries. These have gone. Nothing has been put in their place and we await details. It may be that we shall have to wait until the current European negotiations are fully revealed.
      We learn from the Home Secretary's recent statement that the Government intend to reduce the number of East African Asians entering to take up employment from 4,000 to 2,000. There are to be no more A vouchers except for Malta. If the aim of the Government had been to reduce numbers, there was no need for an Act of Parliament; this could have been done under the existing system. The cut-down in vouchers for Commonwealth citizens was done in advance of this legislation, which shows that the Bill is not necessary for this purpose.
      The Minister of State said again this afternoon that large numbers of Commonwealth citizens will not be coming into this country. In what way have the numbers been reduced since the Government came into office, apart from what was said a fortnight ago? In what way does the Bill deal with this? We do not know what the new work permit scheme is to be. If that is the purpose of the Bill, we have no knowledge how it will operate. What was done a fortnight ago, as the right hon. Gentleman told me at Question Time, was done under the existing rules.
      In this important respect of work permits, the Bill gives a blank cheque. We have every right to ask probing questions when the Government introduce a Bill which gives them a blank cheque. The delay in getting information—which I presume has something to do with Europe—is a reason why the Bill should have been delayed. Since such a vast change will take place in the concept of immigration for work purposes if we go into Europe, and given the fact that there has been no change of numbers, apart from that announced a fortnight ago in the number of East African Asians, the Bill should have been delayed
      736
      so as to give time to get the citizenship aspect right. If we do not sign the Treaty of Rome there will be even more reason to wait—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: We will not.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, who is a senior Conservative, has inside knowledge. It is possible to learn things even in a debate.
      Another blot on the Bill is the right to deport families who themselves may not have committed a crime. This arises from the change from employment vouchers to work permits. Employment vouchers gave a statutory right to the families to come, but work permits do not. The Government, therefore, in future will be bringing in a number of temporary workers on the European model—what number we do not know. The Government want to be sure that families will be able to return to the country of origin. I learnt while I was in office—and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has written about this—that the motives of Commonwealth citizens for coming to this country are profoundly different from the motives of those who come from the territories of Europe. The administrative need to provide machinery for dealing with what the Government regard as a problem under work permits has given rise to a fundamental change in the law so that people can be deported for something which they have not done.
      We had hopes, after the remarks of the Home Secretary on Second Reading, that there would be a change in the matter of registration, but we have learned that this is not to be. The pattern of the movement of labour on work permits from the southern belt of Europe and the movement of labour to this country from Asian countries are essentially of the same type, but the latter is affected by our former Empire and our rules of citizenship.
      It is vital that we should have information on why people come here and on employers who ask for them to come. The T.U.C. in its evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration said that registration for this purpose would be valuable. It would enable the local Department of Employment to

      737
      get in touch with a worker to make sure that he knew about his trade union rights and to indoctrinate him socially about his work place. We had hoped that it would be possible to use these means rather than registration with the police in the first instance.
      The Department of Employment has gained a high reputation and, after perhaps a slow start, has done quite a lot here. Whatever information is collected should be available to the Department of Employment and particularly to the Department of Manpower Planning. Laissez faire in the movement of labour may be an excellent economic doctrine for the maximisation of profits, but it may be the most devilish thing to the people themselves who are moved around, with the oscillating economic forces. I speak personally with some feeling about this.
      I know the difficulties of registration. I was approached yesterday on behalf of a young United States girl who had read in the paper what was going on. She had been here for a long time and had not registered. I was asked what she should do. I advised her to go quickly, because she was in serious trouble with the law. She is due to leave these shores within 14 days. Only recently did she find that she had been breaking the law, and I suspect there are others in a similar position.
      In one sense registration is not as good as we like to think. This is not anybody's fault; it is a most difficult task. The follow-up is also difficult. Commonwealth citizens come here with the right to vote, with the right to be justices of the peace and with all the rights of citizenship because they are Commonwealth citizens. Registration with the police, given the fact that the Government, quite rightly, have decided they shall keep this citizenship, is wrong.
      There has been talk of numbers—which is unproven—there has been talk about repatriation, which we have not got, because it is not repatriation which we have been discussing today. The shadow of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West lies behind the Bill. The Bill was born out of a desire to tap prejudice without condoning it; it was also born out of a desire to win the last General Election. As a result we have not only a misconceived Bill, but a bad one.
      738
      Despite the remarks by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, particularly the remarks made this afternoon about deportation and about repatriation, which were heartening to hear and which will play a great part in damping down opinion on this Bill, what we complain about is the concept which was behind the Bill in the first instance. It has done harm to race relations, which is a tender plant difficult to understand. For this reason and because of these inconsistencies, we shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.
      8.17 p.m.
      Mr. Powell: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoilt an agreeable speech—indeed, many of his contributions throughout this Bill have been agreeable and often important—by attributing absurd motives to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Whatever else can be said for or against the Bill, what is clear is that for the most part it carries out undertakings which have been given officially on behalf of the Conservative Party not merely at the General Election but for a number of years before. That is the simple reason for this Bill. With all its failings, such as they are, it carries out what we said we would do in the way in which we said we would do it.
      I shall not detain the House for many minutes, since I speak in the mood of a Third Reading debate whereby, under the rules of order, we are limited to what is in the Bill itself. It is right that at this stage note should be taken of some of the important things which the Bill does and of the important changes that it makes. Although I cannot share the hope of my right hon. Friend that it will prove to be in any sense definitive, the importance of some of the changes is that they may lead the way and open the door to further changes.
      The first point to which I would draw attention is the improvement of control for the future. There is no doubt that this will contribute to the prevention of illegal entry or stay, as contrasted with control of numbers. The provisions for registration in particular will help administration. There can be no excuse for a system which allows evasion on a substantial scale. I believe that in future evasion will be very much harder and that those ill-feelings, which the existence

      739
      of evasion tends to create, will be less as a result of the control provisions in this Bill.
      Valuable are also the extension of time limits, the creation of new offences in connection with illegal immigration, and the higher penalties for breach of the Immigration Laws. I am sure that all this will contribute to limit and curb what from every point of view is a scourge and a blot, the trade of illegal immigration. It ought to be set down for virtue to the Bill that it will make the crime of illegal immigration, and the aiding and abetting and organisation of illegal immigration, more difficult and more dangerous than they were before.
      So far as future non-patrial immigrants are concerned, deportation will now be available as long as they are in this country, unless and until they become patrial by status. I believe this remedies for the future—unfortunately, in my view, only for the future—something which has caused a good deal of heartburning and a sense of unreasonableness, namely that after a certain number of years a person who was not patrial and who did not belong to this country, who had chosen not to belong to this country, was not liable to be deported, however heinously or repeatedly he broke the laws of this country. For the future those who enter this country and who are permitted to stay here and to settle here will, unless and until not only by their own act but by permission of the Government they become "belongers", still be liable to deportation. This commends itself to a sense of what is right and proper.
      I may not carry the same degree of agreement when I refer to the power to remove the Republic of Ireland from the common travel area. This is one of the aspects of the Bill where nothing is actually to happen in the present but where provision is made for a contingency in the future. It is not widely known, but hon. Members will be aware that citizens of the Republic of Ireland are at present subject to control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, and they remain subject to control under this Bill, apart from the existence of the common travel area. I have no intention of opening the question—which is indeed a question of citizenship and not one of immigration—of the status in the United Kingdom of the citizens of the Irish
      740
      Republic. The Bill makes it possible, if circumstances require and if policy changes, for the control which has always existed for the last 9 years in posse to be exercised in esse by the alteration of the boundaries of the common travel area.
      I come to two very much larger matters. One is that undeniably the Bill removes the automatic right of admission to this country of the dependants—as statutorily defined—of immigrant parents already here. That right, which was in the 1962 and 1968 Acts, has ceased to be a statutory right. Of course my right hon. Friend has made it clear, and it appears in the draft rules, that he intends by rule to secure approximately the same effect as was secured hitherto by statute. Nevertheless, it is an important change that this right of admission has ceased to be a statutory right and has become a right accorded by administrative practice under the rules.
      Mr. John Mendelson: It is a loss.
      Mr. Powell: It is certainly a change. At certain stages it has been argued, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, that there is no important change or difference here. I do not agree. I recall the Minister of State yesterday, in another connection, arguing that if something had been in the words of a statute it would not have been possible to change administrative policy, to alter administration, as promptly as might have been desired. Undoubtedly, where a right is accorded by statute, it is very much tougher than a right which is a matter of administrative practice in the rules. But later yesterday the House was carried much further by the interchange between the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, from which interchange it appeared that these rules, or important parts of them, which have been before us during consideration of the Bill would, if a certain decision were to be taken, have to be replaced by different rules. Thus already in the first few months of this new legislation my right hon. Friend is contemplating quite fundamental alterations in those rules to which in future the right of admission of dependants will be consigned.
      Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's

      741
      interesting argument, the reality is that the Government and the party in power which supports it remains firmly committed to allowing the dependants of these people to continue to arrive here and that they have no intention of stopping the right of admission of such people.
      Mr. Powell: I know that very well. But through the change that has happened it is no longer necessary to alter the statute in order to alter that policy, if and when a decision to alter it takes place. I have made no secret of my opinion that this unconditional right ought not to be accepted; that it ought to be a conditional and discretionary right. I have made no secret of my belief that the present rate of inflow is much higher than ought to be accepted in relation to the dimensions of the existing problem. It has been pointed out that a great part of that inflow consists of dependants. Last night the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, ventured the prediction that there would be a day—I thought he was wise not to put a date to it, although I tried to tempt him—when the annual net inflow from the new Commonwealth would be only 8,000 per year. At the moment net immigration from the new Commonwealth is running at about 40,000 per year. Although we hear constantly about the fall in numbers admitted for settlement, the fact happens to be that net immigration from the new Commonwealth in the first quarter of this year was larger than it was last year and nearly as large as it was the year before.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Could I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Some years ago at the Home Office it was the practice from time to time to give the net figure and it was used as some indication of the number that was left. In fact I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when one looks at this matter, as I have put to him before, it may be seen that the net figures must be different at different times of the year. The figures I have before me show a great drop in the number of dependants, and it is about dependants that the right hon. Gentleman is arguing at the moment.
      Mr. Powell: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. I would not venture to use the net figure except in terms of comparison of years or substantial periods. I referred to the first quarter of
      742
      this year only because of the deplorable practice, when the monthly figures appear, of making statements which are misleading against the background of the longer-term trend. Where, however, a net figure is a constant plus year by year I maintain that the net figure must be significant for knowing the build-up of the new Commonwealth population here.
      On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is right: although the dependants are a substantial part of the net intake, they are not so high a proportion as they constitute of the figure, as it is called, "admitted for settlement". Nevertheless, I do not believe—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree—that any large reduction in that net figure, which is the number which matters in practice, could be attained for a considerable time if we remain under this obligation to admit dependants automatically. Therefore—I will be candid about it—I welcome the fact that we now have the means, whenever we decide, to change this policy by administrative action.
      Finally, I mention Clause 29. As has been pointed out this afternoon, as it stands in the Bill, whatever use happens to be made of it initially, it is quite wide in its ambit. It does not perhaps provide as much assistance in cases where assistance is applicable as I think may sometimes be desirable; but its ambit, in terms of the Bill, is wide.
      My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said that he regards the scope for its application as narrow. I believe that he is mistaken both as regards the fact, and in what I feel is his wish and intention that the scope should prove to be narrow. I believe that the scope is substantial, that the advantage of those powers being used on a substantial scale would also be considerable, and that their net effect would not be the exacerbation of feelings in this country, but a reduction of the apprehensions which lie behind such dangerous feelings.
      Mr. David Lane: My right hon. Friend is fond of making statistical forecasts. However, I do not recall him ever telling the House—I may have missed it if he has—first, if his policy is to be effective, what kind of financial incentive he has in mind, and, secondly, what kind of increase in

      743
      public expenditure over the years he thinks this will involve.
      Mr. Powell: When we get the scheme from my right hon. Friend we shall see what his financial proposals are. We do not know how many will seek to avail themselves of those proposals; and without knowing how many will no computation can be made. I have at various stages referred to the unsatisfactory evidence, such as it is—and it is unsatisfactory—about the numbers of people who might in various circumstances be prepared to accept this assistance. My view is that the numbers would be substantial in the absence of any pressure, not to mention harassment, whatsoever. My hon. Friend will realise that, in the nature of the case, any estimate must be entirely speculative and that it would be foolish to attempt to put a figure to it.
      I do not fail to understand the grounds—some of them were being advanced this afternoon—why some hon. Members and elements of opinion view with distaste certain implications both of the policy which could be implemented under Clause 29 and of the policy which could be implemented because the admission of dependants is no longer a statutory right. These matters, however, have to be viewed not in the abstract but in the light of that catastrophic error under the shadow of which everything we do or say and all our legislation upon this subject takes place. It is a catastrophic error of which the dimensions are seen to be larger the further away we get from it. Indeed, if the dimensions had been seen at the time the error would not have been committed. I noted the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, South that on this matter over the years very few people have been right.
      The catastrophic error was that the legislation which took place in 1962 had been delayed for about five years. It was so little, and yet so large in its effect. The error lies behind us, the consequences lie before, and we all have a duty, from which we cannot without guilt slip out, to address ourselves to the magnitude of that error, as we are now coming to see it, and of the consequences. It is in that light that I welcome both what is deliberately done in the Bill, and the opportunities for a further development of policy which it opens up.
      8.36 p.m.
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has supported the Bill is, in my view, sufficient condemnation of it. He has said that it will not prove to be definitive. The fact is that we know that he will exercise great pressure on the Government to introduce further legislation affecting the rights of immigrants. That is the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing for many years.
      Despite the blandishments of the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, I believe that the Bill is shallow, empty, superficial, unnecessary and dangerous.
      "It is a Bill which can only do great harm to race relations in this country. The distinction drawn between patrials and non-patrials can only be described as racialistic, as it will, in effect, discriminate against coloured Commonwealth citizens."
      Those are not my words, but the words of the Chairman of Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism. Those words were uttered when the Bill was published. I believe that the condemnation that was therein voiced was an effective indictment, and a true one.
      But it is not only that organisation, it is not only the Labour Party, and it is not only the Opposition in this House who have condemned the Bill. It has been condemned by the British Council of Churches, and by community relations councils all over the country. I know of none which has given it any degree of support. It has been condemned by organisations which daily have to deal with the task of improving community relations. It has been condemned, if not wholly, certainly in many material respects by the organisation of which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), happens to be President, the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, the Bill was introduced because the Government were imprisoned by their own electoral slogans, and it is not enough that they have dressed the whole thing up in a bit of liberal tinsel here. The gaping holes are revealed underneath that tinsel, and the real indictment of the Bill is that it has already divided the nation, and will continue to do so, that it has sown fear, doubt and suspicion, as is evidenced by

      745
      what community relations councils have said, and that it is a sop to racialistic opinions, as is evidenced by the support which racialist organisations have given to it.
      The fact is that during the discussions on the Bill the Government have persistently said that the numbers are no longer a problem, though they might be a problem in the years ahead. There is no evidence to suggest that. The fact is that the Government have condemned the Bill out of their own mouth as being totally irrelevant. There can be little doubt that had it not been for the great pressures that were exercised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-west over the last couple of years the Bill would not have seen the light of day. What the Government wanted to do before the election was to foster the illusion that they were tough on immigration, that they were going to do something about it, so that perhaps the more extreme elements might feel that if this kind of legislation were introduced a very large number of black faces would disappear from our streets.
      All this was unquestionably meant that a great deal of mischief has been done so far as a feeling of security amongst the black immigrant community is concerned in this country. I have seen it myself in my own constituency where we have a very large number of immigrants, more, proportionately, than in Wolverhampton, not only immigrants who are black but those who come from Europe and other areas of the world. My own community relations officer, for whom I have the greatest regard, was very disheartened and disquieted when this Bill was introduced, and his fears and anxieties have not been assuaged by the occasional tribute that has been paid to community relations officers by the Ministry of State.
      The fact is that the work that he and his organisation has to do, the task of reconciliation, the constructive rôle of setting up play centres and all the work that has to be done in order to make the job of integration and harmonious relationships between the races effective, has been very gravely imperilled. In my own constituency perhaps the most important feature of creating harmony has been the way in which the police have worked with the community relations council. We have
      746
      police officers attending every executive committee meeting and every full meeting of the council. They have given every evidence to the people of Hackney that they want to create a better situation. They want to remove the suspicion that unquestionably exists between black people and police in many areas and particularly in some areas of London.
      The Hackney Community Relations Council had the full backing of the local authority. It has therefore been particularly hurtful to that community relations council, and, I believe, to many others, that the Minister of State refused categorically to give an undertaking that he would consult community relations councils about how the Bill was to work. He gave an undertaking to consult the police but not community relations councils.
      I will read to the Committee a letter which I had received. I feel that it expresses better than I can the feeling that is expressed by a man of the character of Mr. Jak Baksi, the community relations officer, who, I believe, speaks for community relations officers up and down the country. This is what he said when the Minister refused to consult him:
      "I am appalled that if the Government is to expend public funds to set up organisations ostensibly designed to look after community relations it should then refuse to consult them on matters which so vitally affect community relations, namely, the way in which registration is to operate in practice. I support your suggestion to have regional conferences of community relations officers so that there can be an effective dialogue between ourselves and the Minister. It is a big mistake to confuse what may be termed immigrant organisations' interests with the overall policy and strategy of community relations. It is well to remember in this connection that a Black Power organisation representing minor immigrant interests may well contrast with the fundamentals of multiracial harmony. Ours is a struggle against both extreme white and extreme black prejudice. To by-pass us is also to stab us in the back."
      Mr. Sharples: I hope that the hon. Member would not want to misrepresent what I said. I said that the correct channel of consultation in a matter of this kind was the Community Relations Commission.
      Mr. Davis: The Minister of State did say this, but he refused categorically to convene a meeting of those who are most

      747
      directly concerned so that he could arrange a dialogue between himself and those who are in this field.
      The Bill undermines those who are already here. The Minister was anxious to say that that was not so; but it is. Those who are here will be the kith and kin of those immigrants who are still to come. They will understand the opprobrious deportation laws that the Bill involves. They will understand the impact of deportation of families. They will be the relatives of those who will be subject to the humiliating probationary terms which the Bill imposes.
      Most of all, they will all feel the effect of registration with the police and the sort of pass law system which will be set up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Hon. Members opposite may object, but the fact is that there will be police officers-only a minority of police officers, I am glad to say—who do not like black people. If hon. Members deny that this exists, they are burying their heads in the sand. There are bad police officers, there are mischievous police officers and there are police officers who will harass. This gives them the ammunition, the wherewithal, to do this.
      That is why the Police Federation is so much opposed to registration. That is why important police officers in positions of great responsibility want to have nothing to do with registration. It will be imposed on them, but they are deeply sensitive to the problem which exists in places like Notting Hill.
      Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very important for all of us, in discussing this matter, not to use phrases which could easily stir up the kind of feelings which will not help racial harmony? Would he not, on reflection, agree that it is as important for him as for other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, not to use phrases like "pass laws" when he would object to similar phrases being used by other hon. Members?
      Mr. Davies: I am representing a point of view which has been expressed very forcibly to me, and I believe that it is right to represent it while the Bill is still capable of change.
      748
      As for repatriation, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed it, that it was quite wide in its ambit, he was, of course, putting his own point of view forcibly and expressing the dangers which we tried to explain throughout the Committee stage. Similarly, when he spoke of administrative provisions and the disappearance of the statutory right of dependants, that was a sinister departure from the previous law. That is something which we tried to stress in Committee.
      The realities are that we shall continue to have a large black population. It is a British population. There are children growing up here who want to be secure. What we need is a substantial programme of urban aid and renewal for the stress areas.
      We want to give increased help to the community relations councils. Our survival depends on our ability to face these problems and accept the challenge of change which they involve. It also depends on our ability to rebuke the voices of hate and turn away from those who preach fear, despair and doubt, which will, and are intended to, divide the nation.
      8.50 p.m.
      Mr. W. F. Deedes: It is, of course, possible to exaggerate the beneficial consequences of this Bill. It is also possible and easy to exaggerate the harm it may do. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who has contributed a great deal to our deliberations on the Bill, ended his remarks on that note.
      The hon. Gentleman showed emphatically in Committee, as he has shown elsewhere, that he has the intellectual capacity to attack the Bill on perfectly legitimate grounds without resorting to a side kick at the police, one which was totally unjustified and may prove harmful.
      Since I have been in this place Ministers representing the Home Office have stood at the Dispatch Box and promised—this has frequently happened when we have been discussing expiry laws continuance legislation—that permanent legislation would be introduced sooner or later. I have heard that promise made and broken for more than 20 years. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend

      749
      on having at last produced permanent legislation. As I say, it has been promised for many years, and I regard the last Schedule as not the least of the Measure's achievements.
      I must utter a word of an ecumenical character. It is on an aspect about which I hope we have learned something and on which I feel strongly. Whatever may be said for or against the Bill, an enormously heavy burden of administration will fall on the public officials who are responsible for immigration and control. It will begin with the entry certificate officers overseas, continue to the immigration officers here and affect many Departments, notably the Department of Employment.
      In opening the Third Reading debate the Minister paid an appropriate tribute to the work of the police. However, the police will not be the only branch of the public service to be heavily involved in the implementation of the Bill. The House has small conception of the degree to which we depend, have depended and will depend to an even greater extent when this legislation is passed on the work of public officials, on whom we rely to do many of the things about which we have been arguing.
      I will not flatter my right hon. Friend by saying that the Bill will make their task easier. Indeed, it will make it a great deal harder. To an unusual degree, this legislation will place a tremendous burden on those who are responsible for considering, checking, vetting, passing or refusing, as the case may be, every case that may fall under this Bill. For example, the provisions of Clause 2 will fall to be dealt with by these officials, whose discretion will be decisive, however we seek to determine it here.
      Hon. and learned Members have shown great concern in the interests of justice and particularly in the rights of appeal. There must, of course, be safeguards, and I appreciate what hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House have said. It is, however, misleading to believe in the sphere of administration that the judicial function will guarantee justice. The wrong decision taken by one of these public officials in a small office in Bombay, Delhi or wherever else it may be will not necessarily be corrected by one, two or more wise men sitting at London Airport.
      750
      In my experience, and I am firmly convinced of this, justice resides nine times out often with the administrative officials who have first responsibility, and under this Bill that will continue to an even greater degree. Those officials can determine the status of these individuals, and their determination will affect the lives of these people and of their families.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the likelihood of the Bill increasing our defences against illegal immigration. To a certain extent, he is right. I regard evasion of the immigration laws as a very great evil. I will not elaborate on that now. There have been channels through which evasion has been much too easy. But, whatever we may write into the Bill, in the end it will be the public official who will decide the degree of evasion which takes place.
      Once or twice during the course of proceedings on the Bill I have been at pains to remind hon. Members that in seeking justice for the immigrants we should not lose our balance to the point of creating the greatest of injustices, which is a system which can be evaded, and thereby not only defeat our intentions but also defeat the intentions of many genuine immigrants who, in a sense, are beaten to the post.
      My impression is that we have been very well served by these public officials. Humanity under the law is their job, and all that I have seen has very much made me feel that we are in their debt. But when we pass this fairly complex legislation, the House should be aware of the enormous degree of discretion which has reposed in them and will still repose, and we have to take that on trust. In passing the Bill and congratulating ourselves on our work, or not congratulating ourselves, nothing we have done should obscure that from us.
      8.58 p.m.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: In his speech introducing the Third Reading, the Minister of State talked about the Bill passing on. I do not know about passing on, but there has been a certain amount of passing off about the Bill. It was put before the electorate as the means whereby unrestricted immigration into Britain would be slopped. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees),

      751
      the power to stop immigration, to reduce it to a trickle—which is what it now is—has existed from 1962 and was increased in 1968. Nothing in the Bill reduces the amount of influx into Britain.
      The Bill makes two major changes in our legislation which may in the future allow administrative changes of policy, one of which would reduce the influx and the other of which may enable those living here to be sent away. Both of them have been referred to by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is significant that he should have picked upon these two matters; because, despite the known pretentions of members of the liberal wing of the Conservative Party who rose to interrupt him, he contemplates the Bill with satisfaction. So he should, because he has won a great victory in these two major changes. First, he has persuaded the Government to remove the automatic right of a dependant of an immigrant already here to enter this country to join the breadwinner. Now it depends entirely upon administrative policy and the tenor of the view in the Home Office at the time as to whether that right will continue. A change could be made by a new Home Secretary or by the existing Home Secretary under the pressure which could be whipped up by none other than the right hon. Gentleman himself.
      It was significant, too, that when we were discussing earlier the so-called repatriation clause, he did not intervene in our discussion at Report stage, save only when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) was referring to the publicity that might be given to this as a means of inducing people to go home. The right hon. Gentleman rose to ask why we should not give publicity to this provision and why we should keep it secret.
      The right hon. Gentleman has no intention of keeping it secret. This will be the next stage in the downward campaign of the right hon. Gentleman in race relations. From now on I predict that he will make speeches in Wolverhampton and elsewhere pointing out to the community that the power now lies in the Home Office, to be made by a simple change of mind on the part of the Secretary of State and not referable to legislation which
      752
      can be checked in the House. He will point out that all that is needed is a giant campaign amongst the public to put pressure on the Home Secretary.
      Does any one of those liberal Members on the Tory benches think that we in those circumstances should be sanguine about the Bill? It is totally unnecessary to restrict numbers, but it introduces these two changes which could produce a deterioration in community relations, particularly if the right hon. Gentleman continues with his campaign.
      Mr. John Hunt: Can the hon. Gentleman name one member of the present Government who is likely to support an aggressive repatriation campaign of the kind he foresees?
      Mr. Lyon: Who could have said of those who were Shadow Ministers in 1966 that they would have ever contemplated Clause 29? Clause 29 came about largely because of the pressure of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It has been framed in these terms to sell it to the country. There is a deterioration because of the campaign of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it has yet ended. What I think has ended is the change in legislation, because now all the powers exist to give the right hon. Gentleman what he wants. This is deeply regrettable.
      Mr. Michael Fidler: The hon. Member referred a little while ago, repeating what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), to assistance for those who want to "go home". Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that immigrants who are here do not regard Britain as their proper home but constantly think in terms of their countries of origin as their home? Or is he perhaps misusing the word and using it in inverted commas?
      Mr. Lyon: I was not misusing the word. There was a good deal of rugged Scottish sense in what my hon. Friend said on this point. There is an ambivalence about the relationships of a first generation immigrant. There is a sense in which his domicile is both the country in which he was born and the country where he has come to live. Increasingly with the passing of years the domicile begins to change so that he begins to consider Britain home. There

      753
      is a sense in which there is still a connection with the home land.
      It is a point of semantics, because even if I were using the word in inverted commas in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has suggested the point simply is that pressure might be put on these people to go home rather than to face the realities of the situation around them, which has been gradually deteriorating over a period and which may deteriorate further if the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West continue in the same vein.
      Therefore, I deeply regret that the Bill has been introduced. However, if we were to come to it with a fresh mind and to say that the old law was bad in many ways—for instance, it had two different codes—and that we wanted a rational code for all immigrants, I would prefer that we should look at the needs of those who come here when they come here as immigrants.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South touched on the nub of the problem. People who come to Britain come basically for one of two reasons. One category is composed of temporary, transitory workers. The other category is those who come here to settle. If a new coherent code were to be devised for all immigrants, it should distinguish between those who come here to settle and those who come only to work.
      The virtue of the old system of having two codes was that by and large Commonwealth citizens came to settle and the others can come only as transitory workers. I know that that as a broad generalisation is faulty, because there were large exceptions. Therefore, I was content to continue with the dual code precisely because it met the dual needs of different people coming here.
      If we were to start afresh with a new code, we would do well to make provision in the new code for these dual needs. This may come about if we start to reconsider the whole of our citizenship law. It is on this one point that I share common ground with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest. We must now consider whether we ought to have a United Kingdom citizenship law which is exclusive.
      I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. Precisely because of the
      754
      historic nature of our present citizenship law there are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are citizens of no other country but who were not born here and who have not so far lived here. They can claim relationship to no other country. Therefore, when we devise such citizenship we must take them in as well. That means going back on the 1968 Act. I am prepared to do so in order to start afresh with that citizenship concept.
      Once we have that, we can go on to have the dual code for immigrants to which I have referred. Many people in that dual code would be those that have been described as belongers, people who have family links with this country. Some hon. Members, at least, feel that we have a special duty towards them. But I should be prepared to put them in the dual code with all other citizens from the rest of the world, whether commonwealth or aliens, who want to come here. Then, administratively, we should have to apply the dual code liberally. It would not be possible to make a distinction between the people who emotionally belong and those who emotionally do not. It would be necessary to exercise a general liberal attitude in the administration of the code to cope with those with whom we felt we had a special emotional connection.
      It is for that reason that I support the idea of a citizenship law which is narrow and restrictive, which means that for the rest we have to be more liberal than we do under the system of patriality. Under the patriality system carte blanche is given to those to whom we thought we owed a duty, to those whom we wanted to have patriality, and for the rest it is possible to have a very restrictive administrative policy. It is for that reason that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West supports the patriality scheme. Not so me; I should have prefered that we had a much narrower citizenship and therefore a much wider administrative policy.
      For those reasons, I find the Bill deeply regrettable. I am sure that in the end we shall all rue the day when it went through the House.
      9.10 p.m.
      Sir Frederic Bennett: Your very reasonable wish that we should be

      755
      extremely brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, prevents me from dissecting as thoroughly as I should like the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). Had he been a member of our Standing Committee, I do not think he would have said what he did about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who certainly did not show by his conduct, attitude or speeches in that Committee that he regards the Bill as a triumph in any way. The hon. Gentleman should have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings. For instance he would then have seen that my right hon. Friend, whatever else may be said about his attitudes, opposed patriality in its entirety from the moment it was introduced in the Committee.
      The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said that there were mischievous police and so on. He has already been reproved by a colleague more distinguished than I, but I must add that there are also mischievous Members of Parliament. We can all form our own conclusions as to who they have been throughout the passage of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke very reasonably. We sat opposite one another for a long time in Committee. In disagreeing with us he did not for a moment suggest that we had in the Bill done anything different to what we had proposed in our election manifesto. It cannot be said of this Bill that the Conservatives have not done precisely what they said in that manifesto they would do when elected. The hon. Gentleman was unable to find one thing in the Bill that was a breach of the undertakings or exceeded them.
      At the beginning of our consideration of the Bill there were several attempts to assert that it was racist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has read everything said by all those who have spoken any longer believes in his heart that it can in any sense be described as racist. Nor did it ever purport to be. It contains no racist sentiments from start to finish.
      The only accusation made at any stage that has even theoretical force is in the context of patriality. I make no apology for feeling unhappy that we did not manage to go as far as we could to meet the desire of those of our own very close
      756
      kith and kin with particularly close ties with this country—most of all those from New Zealand and Australia—to continue to come to this country to live. That, however, is not racist.
      I believe that we owe a special duty to Australia and New Zealand and their citizens because they adopt a very special, generous treatment towards us. There are only two Commonwealth countries which allow the same facilities to our immigrants as we do, allow them to live freely in the community and to ovte as soon as they land. Those two countries are Australia and New Zealand. Even Canada has a regulation stating that a person has to reside there for five years and become a Canadian citizen before he can vote. Australia and New Zealand alone afford the same treatment to us as we do to Commonwealth citizens.
      As for the treatment accorded to Commonwealth immigrants and aliens, most of us are satisfied that we still give some degree of "favouritism" towards Commonwealth immigrants where they ought to have it; that is, in their participation in the life of this country once they have come here. Where we have not made any distinction in their favour is in registration and deportation. I have no regrets about this. There was general unanimity, certainly on our side in Committee, that there should not be a distinction between Commonwealth citizens and aliens over registration and deportation. It would be strange if for some reason a Commonwealth citizen should feel insulted or hurt by the suggestion that he should register with the police when this has gone on for decades under successive Governments with regard to aliens and when, incidentally, it applies to every British citizen who goes abroad.
      We are spending too much energy and thought on this matter of repatriation. We have only to think of the available shipping and air facilities to realise this. If every known method of transportation was utilised we could not start to make a dent in this country's social problems involving repatriation. We fool ourselves and our constituents if we think, no matter how generous the treatment we afford, that repatriation will solve the problems of large-scale immigration. It will not be the answer. It is a minor alleviation but I doubt whether it goes very far towards helping.

      757
      It would be a pity if the Bill went through this House without someone pointing out that we have a tendency to go in for self-criticism on a scale which is not paralleled abroad. I have taken a good deal of trouble to check immigration policies elsewhere. I mention no names tonight but I tell hon. and right hon. Members without fear of contradiction that in a Commonwealth of free and equal nations, when this Bill is passed, we will still accord treatment to those who come to our shores which is fairer, more generous and more just than any other Commonwealth country.
      9.19 p.m.
      Mr. David Steel: The saddest conclusion I have reached at the end of our long discussions is that, regrettably, this was a thoroughly unnecessary Measure. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that what was necessary and still is necessary is a revision of the 1948 British Nationality Act so that we can start from a basis of establishing a citizenship law.
      This Bill does nothing about numbers, but the Government never pretended that it would. The need to tackle numbers arose purely from the pre-election statements made by the party opposite. We have only to look at the 8,500 vouchers which could be given, to note the 4,000 which were given, and which will be reduced to 2,000, to realise that. That is 2,000 people who will come here, in the words of the anonymous letters which I and no doubt others have received, to take our jobs and live on the dole—presumably in one and the same breath. This could hardly be described, except in terms of fantasy, as a flood of people continually coming to our shores. Yet that unfortunately was the spectre which the Conservative Party, through the wording of its manifesto and its pre-election pledges, allowed to remain in the minds of many people.
      The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) unwittingly does this side of the House a service in speeches such as the one he made tonight. Whenever the Home Secretary comes to the Dispatch Box and gives us, in a straightforward way, his view of what Clause 29 means and what will happen, we might be lulled into a
      758
      sense of false security and think that it is not so bad, that the right hon. Gentleman means what he says, and so on. Having been lulled into that feeling, we are shaken out of our slumber by what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-west says. He brings before us and clarifies the real objections which we must have to the Bill.
      I should like to mention one point about the proceedings in Committee. One aspect which we have not yet thoroughly examined, which I hope will be thoroughly examined in another place, is the transfer of rights of dependants from the Statute law to the administrative rules. We have not looked at that sufficiently. I hope that the noble Lords will consider that aspect very severely.
      We made one major improvement to the Bill in Committee. We removed the grandparental qualification for free right of entry, which was obnoxious since it appeared to convey some racial priority. I hope that the Government will think again about the remaining illogicality. I agree with what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for York. We should retain the position of free right of entry only for those who were born here or whose fathers were born here—
      Sir F. Bennett rose—
      Mr. Steel: —and there is a case for saying that we should extend it to those whose mothers were born here as well. What I cannot understand is to extend it to those whose mothers were born here, provided that they themselves were born in certain countries. That is an illogical situation which has been left in Clause 2 and I hope that it will be put right. I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      Sir F. Bennett: The point I was going to raise concerned mothers and fathers. Apparently the hon. Gentleman sees no reason to differentiate between fathers and mothers.
      Mr. Steel: In these days of women's liberation I have argued for extending the right to those whose fathers or mothers were born here. One can argue either case, but the Government's case is the worst.
      There are three fundamental objections to the Bill which will cause my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to vote against Third Reading.

      759
      The first is the deportation provisions. No one would dissent from the proposition that a citizen of another country who is a guest in this country must behave or be liable to be removed. That is a principle which we have always upheld and is not disputed. But now we have these new provisions requiring the removal of families. Students of 16 or 17 years of age engaged in study courses will be required to be deported if they are dependants of persons to be deported. That is a new and serious departure from our existing treatment of persons living in this country. Other parts of the deportation provisions say that we limit deportation to those guilty of imprison-able offences, nevertheless we set that aside for young and first offenders. Now, even if they are not punishable by imprisonment under other laws, they are to be liable to deportation. This seems to be treating people who, in other Acts of Parliament, we treat less harshly, with undue severity.
      The second objection concerns registration with the police. I think that two facts should make the Government think again. One is that immigrant leaders are opposed to this idea and the other is that the police are opposed to it. One need produce no other argument. I need not go into the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). These two facts should make the Government pause and think again whether it would be possible, since we are going over to a work permit scheme for immigrants, to transfer registration to the Department of Employment. As the number of pre-1971 immigrants in relation to post-1971 immigrants decreases, this will become a growing problem and an area of potential and unnecessary conflict within our State. Coloured immigrants are easily identifiable by their skin, and not as to whether they are pre- or post-1971 immigrants. I suggest that this will give rise to real difficulties in future. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider the provision about registration with the police.
      I believe that the provisions for repatriation are the most disastrous of all the provisions in this piece of legislation. Nowhere in Clause 29 does the word "voluntarily" appear, and that in itself
      760
      is a mistake because, if I may quote what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said in Committee, one can see that the line between voluntary departure and departure following subjection to harassment is difficult to draw.
      The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "There is unemployment and social security. There is also sickness benefit, including long-term sickness benefit. There are many immigrant families receiving those payments who fall within the scope of the Clause. It is the duty of the Administration to maximise take-up, and to ensure that there is no-one who might decide to benefit by this scheme, when the terms of it are known, to whose attention it is not brought."
      I find objectionable the idea that people at counters—who are not senior civil servants, but often junior clerks—in the Department of Employment, in the Ministry of Social Services, or in the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be expected, by some people at any rate, to be put in the position of thrusting the opportunity of repatriation down the throats of those who come for the help to which they are entitled. That is an objectionable concept. And I know that the Home Secretary agrees that it is objectionable but, alas, that is the concept that is opened up under Clause 29, and the right hon. Gentleman was right when, three columns later, he said:
      "We can play with the words 'voluntary' and 'involuntary'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 25th May, 1971; c. 1324–7.]
      Indeed we can, and there is a narrow line between the giving of advice, the opportunity of drawing attention to the scheme, and consistent harassment to take advantage of the scheme.
      Sir G. Sinclair: Would it not be a little fairer, in the interests of race relations in this country, if the hon. Gentleman were to quote not only what one person who does not represent Government policy has said, but also what the Home Secretary representing the Government's view has said?
      Mr. Steel: I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but if in the future we have trouble over this provision it will be no good harking back to what the then Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, said in the House of Commons in 1971. People will look at Section 29 of the then Act. That is what matters, and

      761
      that is why we are entitled to object to it. We are not being asked to vote on whether we approve of the Home Secretary's speeches. If we were asked to do that, I should have no hesitation in doing so. We are being asked to give a Third Reading to Clause 29, and I am saying that it was the hon. Gentleman's leader who in 1968 said:
      "… it remains an important part of our policy that those Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin should be eligible to receive assisted passages from public funds."
      The vital words are
      "an important part of our policy".
      That was said in the climate of 1968, and that is different from the tenor of the speeches of the Home Secretary, of which I very much approve.
      My conclusion is that this rushed Bill was based on bogus promises made at the election. It is an illogical Bill, a rather nasty Bill, and a sad Bill to which this House is being asked to give a Third Reading.
      9.29 p.m.
      Mr. Roger White: The other day my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was described as a liberal-minded man. I believe that to be true. However, he is not only liberal-minded but fair-minded, and that is true also of the other Ministers at the Home Department.
      I very much object to some of the remarks made by some hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Government are being pushed from the rear into policies in which they and the bulk of the Conservative Party do not believe. The Conservative Party fought the last election on the promise of bringing in the kind of Bill that is now before the House.
      I have a large immigrant community in my constituency and a very fine community relations council. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) about the work of the community relations councils. One of the more endearing aspects of my community relations council is that nobody has ever heard of it, for the simple reason that, happily, there is no racial tension in my constituency because people are co-operating with each other, and this is very important.
      762
      Whatever our views are on registration with the police—and I candidly acknowledge that there are fears about this part of the Bill—I am certain that once the Bill becomes law and registration is a fact, the police will be more than capable of carrying out their instructions. In my experience, the police have already handled, through the Aliens Order, aliens of all races, colours and creeds. They have done a magnificent job, and I am sure they will continue to do so.
      My experience of the courts is that whenever they are dealing with issues of deportation, justices make a most careful examination before a recommendation is made. I am certain that the justices will continue to do this. We have in this country a fine reputation for our belief in freedom. As I said in my constituency some months ago in the presence of the India High Commissioner, we are regarded as a fair-minded people both in the immigrant community and beyond the seas. I am, therefore, confident that when the Bill becomes law it will pass into history as being not only a sensible Measure but a fair-minded one.
      9.32 p.m.
      Mr. Callaghan: Having lived with the Bill, although not necessarily grown to love it, for so long, it is a little difficult for us to distinguish the wood from the trees and to see its total impact. Before getting on to that aspect, I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), for the continuous hard work which they have put in and to the small team which slaved night and day in Committee. I should also like to thank Government Ministers who, in the face of continuous provocation from the Opposition, which they well merited, responded in an unfailing and unruffled manner. I thank them for the courteous way in which they met every charge we levelled against them.
      The Bill seemed to be resolving itself, in the eyes of the Government benches, into the question: "Has Enoch won?" I do not quite know, having listened to the drift of the argument, whether or not that is true. My assessment of the Bill as it emerges from this House is that it has not gone as far as the impression given by Conservative spokesmen

      763
      when they were in Opposition would suggest. The impression of the country was that the Conservatives would do such great deeds as to make men's flesh creep, whereas they have not gone so far as those speeches led us to believe.
      On the major question of numbers, which was discussed before the election and had nothing to do with citizenship or with "patriality" which had not then been invented, but for which we are indebted to the Lord Chancellor, the Bill has done nothing. Not one person less will come to these shores as a result of the Bill. People may come in under different and more onerous conditions, there may be a sword of Damocles hanging over them while they rest here—and it is a matter of judgment whether it is a good thing to have a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of those who come to these islands—but not even the most ardent advocate of the Bill will claim that it will make any difference to the number who come.
      If we are drawing up a balance sheet on that, although the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has attempted to prove to his larger constituency outside this House that he has had a great victory, I do not think that he has, because the Home Secretary and the Government have stood up to the pressure which was undoubtedly brought to bear that dependants should be excluded from these islands. I regret that the Government have taken away the statutory right of dependants to come here. This was an essential element in ensuring that dependants should feel that they could live here without the fear of any cat and mouse procedure being applied. As the debate this evening has shown, we are now dependent upon the Home Secretary and his colleagues being able to resist the undoubted further attacks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.
      I agree entirely with those who have said that if the attack is transferred to this ground the Home Secretary will not have the protection of the Statute. He must be able to stand up at his party meeting and say that he does not intend to alter the basis on which people come here. He will not be able to say that we must get a new Act of Parliament
      764
      through. I believe the Home Secretary in his approach to this problem, and I have no doubt that he will endeavour to repel the further attacks that will be made on him, but the Government benches must also do the same if they share those views. A great deal depends on their attitude. I do not much care for that. I would far sooner that dependants' rights were written into the Statute and labelled. I very much regret what has been done.
      I will not go over the ground which we have already covered on repatriation except to say that, for the sake of a very small number of people, the right hon. Gentleman is incurring a very large risk. This is typical of the whole of this legislation. There are small benefits to be gained, but large risks to be taken with race relations. I do not like the term "race relations"; it sounds too much like an industry; but I think I carry the great majority of the House with me when I say it is an obvious matter of fact.
      Even putting the worst construction on Clause 29, it can only affect relatively small numbers of people. It will not affect the one and a half million people who have come to these shores since 1960 or thereabouts. Therefore, the great task before us is to see how we can live together. This is the most important thing. The Home Secretary has rejected the idea that there will be substantial repatriation and the legislation will support him in this. If there were a change of Home Secretary, there could not be repatriation of many people, even if he so wished.
      I believe that it was not worthwhile to take this power for the sake of the small number of people who will be involved in repatriation since it will unsettle the minds of the one and a half million people who are here although they will not be affected by it. This is where the Government's judgment has been wrong. The argument which has been advanced for the Bill is, "We said we were going to do it and we have done it, thus carrying out our election pledge." This was specifically said in one of the Third Reading speeches—it was said that that is a good enough reason. Winston would never have tolerated that kind of sloppy thinking. It was Winston who said, "You stuff it in a manifesto and then forget it." It is a pity Winston is not alive today for this particular reason.

      765
      What the Government have tried to do on the one hand is to quieten the fears of the indigenous population who were born here by indicating that they were to put great restrictions on entry. On the other hand, they have tried to convince the immigrant population that they are not going to do anything to harm them. I do not think the Government have got the balance right. My view is that the indigenous population had come to accept that there was a substantial measure of control and, although the Bill alters the measure of control, it does not alter the total number of people. The net effect of the Bill is that it has unsettled the minds of a great many of the immigrant population with whom we shall have to live in this, the next and in succeeding generations. It is for this reason, among others, that I believe the Bill should not have come forward.
      On the question of patriality and citizenship, a number of interesting proposals, which we are not allowed to discuss on Third Reading, were put forward in Committee. I very much doubt whether the Minister of State is correct in saying that this legislation will survive for many years. There will need to be a more fundamental examination of the conditions under which people come into this country and leave it. We have in Clause 1 a definition of those who come here:
      "All those who are in this Act expressed to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be free to live in, and to come and go into and from the United Kingdom …"
      In other words, whether or not one is an immigrant depends upon whether one is free to come and go, which surely is self-evident. It is this kind of definition of patriality which I find quite insufficient for the purpose of determining who belongs to this country and who should be regarded as such.
      If people come to this country and are admitted here legitimately with the intention of settling here, it is in the best interests of those who are born here and who live here that those people should be encouraged to throw in their lot with us at the earliest possible moment and to the fullest extent. For this reason any provisions which make it difficult for them to do so are harmful to the cause of racial peace and to the creation of a coherent, cohesive society.
      766
      I regret that a number of provisions in the Bill take a step backward, namely in the matter of registration. A great deal depends on how the Home Secretary administers that provision, but as a matter of principle I do not believe it sensible for a host community, having allowed people to come to live among them, to make it difficult for them to throw in their lot completely. I believe that all our legislation should be bent in the opposite way.
      I will not go over all the arguments about the police, except to put one suggestion to the Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary is saying that the police are the persons with whom the immigrants should register—despite opposition by the police themselves, and though very few, apart from those on the Government benches, are in agreement with this suggestion—I hope he will take steps to see that those police officers in the registration procedure who are brought into contact with immigrants—and they will be the first to have contact with them—will be given special training and instruction in their duties. The Government's case is that the police in this country are basically different from those whom the immigrants will have come across in other countries. It is important therefore that their first contact with officialdom in this country should be regulated. I take second place to no one in my admiration for the way in which the police carry out their work, and I have said that on many occasions. But nobody can deny the truth of what my hon. Friend has said, that the police, like the rest of us, are human and when there are 100,000 policemen around we find the same prejudices as are to be found in any other segment of 100,000 of the population. Therefore, this training is very important.
      I regret the Bill. I believe it was unnecessary for the basic purpose advertised before the election, namely, the control of immigrants. I do not believe the definition of patriality will survive. I believe it has unsettled the minds of those immigrants who live among us, whom we want to throw in their lot with us because we are not sending them back; and for those reasons I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Maudling: I entirely accept that the last point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about training is very important, and I will do my best to follow up what he says. At the beginning of his remarks he paid tribute to those who have participated in our discussions. I follow him by, first of all, thanking my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has carried by far the larger burden of the Bill, and those who have supported me; and, in particular, my colleagues in the Standing Committee who were so tolerant of the hours I had to inflict on them. I also thank, in turn, the Opposition, led by the right hon. Gentleman, for making our discussions, although a little prolix, always agreeable and almost always good-tempered. The way in which the Bill is passing through the House has been in accordance with the best traditions of the way that Parliament ought to consider a Measure of this kind. There is one further point that I would take from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman: he said it appeared to him that we were trying to do two things, to quieten the fears of the indigenous population and to convince immigrants that no harm would come to them. That is precisely and exactly what we intend. That is the purpose and object of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we have not succeeded in it, but certainly I would join him in agreeing that this seems to be exactly the right way to tackle the problem.
      The fundamental problem is not so much immigration as community relations. This is a problem that we have in this country. It must not be exaggerated or minimised, and I believe we can solve it better than any other country in the world. I believe we shall do so, but we must recognise that it is a two-way affair and must have regard for both the legitimate fears of the immigrant population and the legitimate fears of our indigenous population. Therefore, I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's definition that our objective and basic purpose in bringing forward this Bill is to unify the law on these matters and assimilate conditions upon which citizens are admitted on a working basis for permanent settlement.
      This is the extent of the change being made, and, as my hon. Friends have
      768
      pointed out, it is in accordance with undertakings which we gave at the General Election. I still feel somehow, despite a certain scepticism on the other side, that there is a certain merit in carrying out one's election undertakings. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought that that might provoke a reaction. But the Bill does not affect visitors, Commonwealth students or working holidaymakers. It is, in effect, doing no more—apart from certain incidentals—than basically extending to Commonwealth citizens, who already when they came here to live were subject to control and often, in many cases, more severe control than aliens—a system which has operated for aliens for generations without, as far as I know, giving rise to any serious complaints. I still cannot understand why it is said that a system accepted by aliens for many years—not only Europeans but non-Europeans in large numbers—should somehow become such a bad system when applied to Commonwealth citizens. I do not see how we can accept that criticism.
      The basis of the Bill is the concept of patriality, which has given rise to a great deal of misunderstanding. It seems an inevitable concept that if there is to be an immigration Bill one must define who is to be subject to control, and who is not. Those who are not subject to control are patrial. Those who are subject to control are non-patrial. No immigration Bill could ever do anything else but define who is controlled and who is not, and the concept of patriality means nothing but that.
      Those who will be patrial under the Bill will be, broadly speaking, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Clause 2(1)(a) and (b), and citizens of Commonwealth countries whose parents were born in this country. This is extending to mothers a right which is already derived by Commonwealth citizens, and other aliens for that matter, through the birth of their father in this country.
      This is the extent, on the broad field of immigration control, of the changes that the Bill is making. As I say, it is designed to give certainty and unification to our system of immigration control. I believe

      769
      very strongly that this is part of the essential foundation of community relations policy.
      If we are to tackle effectively the problem which matters most of all, which is that of community relations, we must, among other things, give a feeling of certainty and confidence, which has in the past, to some extent, been lacking, to the indigenous population that they will not face another wave of immigration on a scale, at a speed, and in a concentration which inevitably brought with it difficulties and social problems and social tensions such as we recognise in this House and are recognised in the country.
      This Bill has been criticised in many ways inside and outside the House—criticised often, abused often—and I have seldom known a Bill which has been criticised on such flimsy grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] For example, it has often been said that this Bill is abolishing the distinction between Commonwealth citizens and aliens and turning all Commonwealth citizens into aliens.
      This is sheer and utter nonsense. There will be no change in the legal status of Commonwealth citizens in this country who remain British subjects; they will retain the fundamental difference between themselves and aliens—namely, they will have the right to vote as soon as they are here and to participate in the public life of this country, including the ability to become Members of this honourable House. This is the distinction—
      Mr. Callaghan: And should we not add—and have the right to be deported once they have become Members of this House?
      Mr. Maudling: I am sure that a Member of this House would not be deported, though I sometimes think that a few of them might be. [Laughter.] If that is out of order, I withdraw it immediately.
      There will be no change in the position of Commonwealth students, who will continue to have a special position. Those coming from the Commonwealth who will be affected and who will be coming for permanent settlement are already subject to control through the quota, so the effect for any citizen of Australia or New Zealand is totally minimal. It would be
      770
      wrong to suggest that we are assimilating the status of alien and Commonwealth citizens.
      Second, the other side of the argument has been that this is a racist Bill. This I wholly reject and regard as totally unfounded. I never quite understood the basis for the argument, but it appeared to be that we were racists because we were according a special position on entry of this country to people who have an ancestral connection with this country, which has always been our law since the year dot, so far as I know. It has always been the law that someone born in this country or the child of a father born in this country has a special position. We are now extending it to mothers.
      It is true that the vast majority of people who can claim this special position are white, because the vast majority of us are white. But it is turning the whole argument on racial discrimination upside down to say that we cannot accord a special position to people with a parental connection with this counrty. Every other country in the world does this. I cannot understand why the fact that we are doing it should be described as some form of racism.
      It is deplorable the way that some people who are genuinely devoted to the cause of community relations should be saying things about this Bill which are totally untrue, the saying of which by them is calculated to do great harm to community relations.
      Consider the question of harassment. It has been said time and again that the immigrants already here will be subject to a new harassment by the police as a result of the Bill. [Interruption.] This has been said, but it is totally untrue. However, the saying of it does enormous harm. It creates fears, tensions and anxieties which can only do damage, and I sometimes think that it is unworthy of those who advance the argument. There is absolutely no new power in this Measure which gives the police any opportunity to harass the immigrant community here.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman rose—
      Mr. Maudling: I will not give way.
      Mr. Kaufman: What the right hon. Gentleman has been saying is nonsense.
      Mr. Maudling: I do not believe in this allegation of harassment of the immigrant population by the police. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) about the quality, bearing and conduct of our police. A policeman who wants to harass immigrants already has the opportunity to do so. Indeed, he could allege that an immigrant he saw came here totally illegally by crossing the beaches at night.
      I do not believe that the number of such people is more than a very tiny fraction of our large police force. It is totally untrue to suggest that the Bill gives any new opportunity for harassment or that it will encourage harassment of the immigrant population on the part of the police. It does not take place now, and it will not take place in future.
      Mr. Bidwell rose—
      Mr. Maudling: I must get on. It is important to recognise that we have taken great care not to change to their detriment the position of people already accepted for settlement in this country. During the passage of the Bill is has been pointed out to me that this principle, which I mentioned in the beginning, has not been fully carried out, and I have amended the Bill and the rules to ensure that it is carried out, for it is of the utmost importance that when we undertake that people already here will not be affected by the Bill, that undertaking should be carried out faithfully.
      Another main subject which has received attention is that of repatriation, and I wish to repeat what I said earlier about the purpose of Clause 29. The Government do not accept the idea of a policy of repatriation on a large scale as an act of policy designed to change the balance of the population in this country. We do not, and will not, accept that concept.
      We believe however—this seems sensible and humane—that where there is an immigrant family which has come here and finds that it is not able to settle
      down—if there is no hope of it settling down and it wants to go home—it is sensible—and why not?—to help such people to go home. That will be good for them and good for society here. Is it not better that people in this position should be helped to go home than have to remain here unhappy, when they would perhaps rather have their neighbours and friends around them in their own society? I feel that the provision in Clause 29 is entirely sensible and should be accepted by the House in the spirit in which it is put forward.
      Much has been said about the effect of the European Economic Community, and last night I was almost enticed into a discussion of the merits and demerits of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. I will only at this stage confirm that whatever decision is made by Parliament on this fundamental issue, it can be accommodated within the terms of the Bill without amendment.
      I repeat that the most important problem is race relations. Difficulty in race relations arises from the speed of the arrival of immigrants and their concentration in certain areas. This has led to social changes being imposed on the people already living in those areas, who perhaps find it hard to accept them. One big element in this problem, as the Minister of State said, is the fear of the unknown on the part of those already here towards those coming here and, of course, on the part of those coming here about what they will find when they get here.
      Let us unite to get rid of this fear. Do not let us have any more of this spreading of rumours about harassment. Let us build a new spirit in a community which wishes to have such a spirit, the encouragement of which I regard as my fundamental responsibility as Home Secretary.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 246.

      Division No. 384.]

      AYES

      [10.0 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Batsford, Brian

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Bell, Ronald

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Balniel, Lord

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Astor, John

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Biffen, John

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Murton, Oscar

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Neave, Airey

      Blaker, Peter

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Body, Richard

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Normanton, Tom

      Boscawen, Robert

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Nott, John

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bowden, Andrew

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hastings, Stephen

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Braine, Bernard

      Havers, Michael

      Osborn, John

      Bray, Ronald

      Hawkins, Paul

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Hay, John

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Heseltine, Michael

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hicks, Robert

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Bryan, Paul

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Percival, Ian

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

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Buck, Antony

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Holland, Philip

      Pounder, Rafton

      Burden, F. A.

      Hott, Miss Mary

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hordern, Peter

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

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

      Hornby, Richard

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

      Carlisle, Mark

      Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Channon, Paul

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Raison, Timothy

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hunt, John

      Redmond, Robert

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Churchill, W. S.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Clark William (Surrey, E.)

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Renton, Rt, Hn. Sir David

      Clegg, Walter

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Cooke, Robert

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Coombs, Derek

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cooper, A. E.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Cordle, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Corfietd, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Kimball, Marcus

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rost, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Royle, Anthony

      Crouch, David

      Kirk, Peter

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knox, David

      Scott, Nicholas

      Curran, Charles

      Lambton, Antony

      Sharpies, Richard

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Lane, David

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

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Shelton, William (Crapham)

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ.-Gen.

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Simeons, Charles

      Dean, Paul

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Dixon, Piers

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

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

      Drayson, G. B.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Soref, Harold

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Loveridge, John

      Speed, Keith

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luce, R. N.

      Spence, John

      Eden, Sir John

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Sproat, Iain

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Stainton, Keith

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      McCrindfe, R. A.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

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

      McLaren, Martin

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Farr, John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)

      Felt, Anthony

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

      Stokes, John

      Fidter, Michael

      McNair-Wilsom, Michael

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      McNalr-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Sutcliffe, John

      Fisher, Niget (Surbiton)

      Maddan, Martin

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fletcher-Cookie, Charles

      Mattel, David

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Fortescue, Tim

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Foster, Sir John

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Fowler, Norman

      Maude, Angus

      Tebbit, Norman

      Fox, Marcus

      Maudllng, Rt. Hn Reginald

      Temple, John M

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

      Mawby, Ray

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Gardner, Edward

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Gibson-Watt, David

      MBIs, Peter (Torrington)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Traflord, Dr. Anthony

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mite hell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

      Trew, Peter

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Moate, Roger

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Goodhart, Philip

      Molyneaux, James

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Money, Emle

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Gorst, John

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Waddington, David

      Gower, Raymond

      Monro, Hector

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Gray, Hamish

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Green, Alan

      Morgan, Geramt (Denbigh)

      Wall, Patrick

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Grylls, Michael

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Warren, Kenneth

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Mudd, David

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick

      Younger, Hn. George

      White, Roger (Gravesend)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Woodnutt, Mark

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Worsley, Marcus

      Mr. Reginald Eyre and

      Wilkinson, John

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      Mr Jasper More.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Foot, Michael

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Albu, Austen

      Ford, Ben

      Mendelson, John

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Forrester, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Allen, Scholefield

      Freeson, Reginald

      Milian, Bruce

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Milne, Edward (Btyth)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gilbert, Dr. John

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

      Ashley, Jack

      Ginsburg, David

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Ashton, Joe

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Barnes, Michael

      Griffith", Eddie (Brightside)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Barnett, Joel

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Beaney, Alan

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamling, William

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      O'Maltey, Brian

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hardy, Peter

      Oram, Bert

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harper, Joseph

      Orbach, Maurice

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Orme, Stanley

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oswald, Thomas

      Booth, Albert

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Paget, R. T.

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

      Hilton, W. S.

      Palmer, Arthur

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

      Horam, John

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Buchan, Norman

      Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas

      Pardoe, John

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

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

      Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      pavitt, Laurie

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pendry, Tom

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pentland, Norman

      Carmichael, Neil

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfletd)

      Jamier, Grevilte

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecoles)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Prescott, John

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Cohen, Stanley

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

      Rankin, John

      Concannon, J. D.

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, s.)

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Richard, Ivor

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, T. Aloe (Rhondda, W.)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Rot"erts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caemarvon)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Kelley, Richard

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

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

      Kerr, Russell

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

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Lambie, Davies

      Roper, John

      Davies Denzil (Lianelly)

      Lamond, James

      Rose, Paul B.

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lawson, George

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Lead bitter, Ted

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Deakins, Eric

      Lestor, Miss Joan

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

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Sillars, James

      Dempsey, James

      Lipton, Marcus

      Silverman, Julius

      Doig, Peter

      Loughlin, Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Small, William

      Dormaml, J. D.

      McBride, Neil

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spearing, Nigel

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      McElhonei, Frank

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dribcrg, Tom

      McGuire, Michael

      Stallard, A. W.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Steel, David

      Dunn, James A.

      Mackie, John

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mackintosh, John p.

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Edelman, Maurice

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Strang, Gavin

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mahon, Simon (Bottle)

      Summerskill, Hn- Dr. Shirley

      Ellis, Tom

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Swain, Thomas

      English, Michael

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

      Taverne, Dick

      Evans, Fred

      Marks, Kenneth

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

      Faulds, Andrew

      Marquand, David

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

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

      Marsden, F.

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

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

      Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy

      Tomney, Frank

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mayhcw, Christopher

      Torney, Tom

      Foley, Maurice

      Meacher, Michael

      Tuck, Raphael

      Urwin, T. W.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Woof, Robert

      Wainwright, Edwin

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

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

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Whitlock, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Wallace, George

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Watkins, David

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Mr. John Golding.

      Weitzman, David

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the National Insurance Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Hawkins.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
  New Clause 2

    PROVISION FOR ANNUAL REVIEW OF RETIREMENT PENSIONS
    There shall be an annual review of the benefit rates provided for in Schedule 2, Part 1, paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 and Schedule 2, Part 2, paragraphs 6 and 7 of this Act.—[Mrs. Shirley Williams.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    The purpose of the Clause which we have tabled since the Bill was dealt with in Committee is to secure that there should be an annual review of retirement pensions, particularly because of the present inflationary situation.
    The main reason the Clause has been tabled in this form on Report rather than in Committee is that since the Committee stage ended, there has been the phenomenally disturbing news about the vastly increased rate in the cost of living and in food prices in the last three months. We now know that over the last three months the rate of increase in prices is running at an annual rate of 14 per cent. We now know that in the last two months alone—between March and April—there was an increase of nearly 3 per cent. in food prices. We now know that there was an overall increase in prices of nearly 2½ per cent.
    The index of retail prices shows that it is in those commodities which loom largest in the budget—food, housing, water, rates, fares and heating—that the increases have been most marked.
    I have said that food prices have risen faster than the cost of living as a whole—at what is now an annual rate of nearly 30 per cent. on the basis of that month. The cost of housing rose by 5 per cent.
    780
    between March and April. Rates, rent, water charges—these are the necessities of life which pensioners, like the rest of us, have to pay for and which figure much more heavily in their budgets.
    In Committee on 18th May we pleaded for an interim increase in pensions if prices and earnings continued to rise at their present rate. They have proceeded to rise at a more rapid rate. I pointed out to the Under-Secretary in Committee that, if the cost of living rose by more than 5 per cent. a year, which Ministers of Pensions have for many years taken to be the average increase in prices, we should wish to press for a further review of retirement pensions. In replying, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean), said:
    "The commitment by my party at the last election was to ensure that the purchasing power of the pension was maintained. That was a firm commitment. That commitment is being carried out with this increase. I can state confidently that it will show, when it comes into operation in September this year, an increase in real terms in comparison with the last increase introduced in 1969."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 18th May, 1971; c. 89.]
    If the present rate of price rises continues until September, it will not be for six months that pensioners will benefit from the increase; it will be at most for six weeks. We on this side do not believe that that fulfils the Government's commitment to maintain the purchasing power of pensions, because it will be expected to last for two years. That means that the present rate of increase the value of the pension will drop by over one-fifth over those two years.
    Conservative hon. Members will say, "Don't blame us. It is not our fault. It is the fault of earnings, of wage claims." That will be a wholly irrelevant argument. It is the responsibility of both sides of the House, whatever reason they may give for the inflation from which this country is suffering, to make sure that the most vulnerable section of the community is protected from that inflation. Therefore, in view of their own commitment to maintain the purchasing power of pensions, the Government must now either tell us that they are certain that the rate of increase in prices will drop very sharply over the next few months—although we know that there are

    781
    policies coming forward that are most unlikely to make that the case—or they must in all decency commit themselves to a review of pensions not later than 12 months from when the present increase comes in, so that we shall not be financing our inflation from one of the poorer sections of the community.
    In the White Paper issued with the National Insurance Bill, the Government Actuary calculated that there would be an increase of £23 million to the National Insurance Fund for each 1 per cent. increase in earnings. That means that if inflation continues the Fund will benefit by any further increases in earnings that result. It is increasingly an earnings-related pension as far as contributions are concerned, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Grossman) pointed out on Second Reading, it is not earnings-related as far as benefits are concerned. When it comes to benefits, we are still talking about a flat-rate scheme.
    If the Government are to take the view that they will carry out a scheme, which, fantastically, combines earnings-related contributions with flat-rate benefits, they must at the very least review those benefits continually so that they do not gain in contributions from inflation and allow the pensioners to lose in benefit.
    I hope and believe that the Amendment may commend itself to the Government, not because they particularly want an annual review but because I believe that anyone who looks realistically at the situation in this country today is bound to accept that it is the only straightforward and simple solution, on the basis of the Government's own scheme, to the devastating effect inflation is having on elderly retired people.
    Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) was wise to decline to be drawn on the question of the cause of the rapid increase in prices from which we have suffered in the last two years.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Twelve months.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If hon. Members want me to be drawn into a debate on that I shall be only too happy. I know that they will be delighted. The hon.
    782
    Lady was quite right to say that from the point of view of the pensioners, and therefore of this Amendment, that cause is irrelevant. I agree with her. What was noticeable about her speech and her very proper reference to the effect of rising prices on pensions—and to many of us on this side that is the worst of all the consequences of rising prices—was that she did not relate the argument at all to the Amendment.
    She must admit that this Amendment taken by itself will be of little if any value to pensioners. All it will do will be to compel the Government of the day to review pensions annually. It would not compel them to do anything as a result. [Interrupation.] If hon. Gentlemen will look at their Amendment they will see that this is so. If it was carried the Government would be compelled to review but not to take any action as a result of that review. The suggestion that this Amendment will be of the slightest practical help in a problem which concerns us on this side just as much as hon. Members opposite is completely illusory. In any situation, and much more so in an inflationary situation, any Minister in the position of my right hon. Friend keeps the matter under continuous review—
    Mr. William Hamilton: And does nothing.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is not quite fair to say that when my right hon. Friend is taking through Parliament the biggest increase in pension rates in history.
    Mr. Hamilton: That is not true.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Anyone in the position of my right hon. Friend does not confine himself to a review of these rates fixed to any particular date in the calendar. It is his job, as it has been that of his predecessors, to keep the position of pensioners continuously under review and as soon as it seems right to act, regardless of the calendar. There are quite obvious disadvantages from the pensioners' point of view in tying him to a precise date for review on an annual basis. Anyone who knows how government works will know that if three months before the review date a Minister felt disposed to review the situation, all the pressures of Whitehall would be on him

    783
    saying, "Minister, you are under a statutory duty to review this in October and it may not be reviewed early in July." This is how the machine of government works, and the hon. Lady knows that.
    If we look at the Amendment as an attempt to raise the position of the pensioners, then the hon. Lady will attract a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the House. I ask the House to accept that we are very much concerned at the effect of these price rises, continuing and rapid, on the pensioners who are so vulnerable to them. There is no difference between the two sides on this.
    Where the hon. Lady passes from an area of general agreement into a very poor position from the point of view of the merits is when she tries to insist that a statutory review at a precisely determined annual date would help the pensioners. We would be kidding ourselves if we were to adopt an Amendment which could do no good and in certain circumstances might do much harm.
    Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) criticised the wording of the Amendment because it talked about "review". Other things are being reviewed at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that there are some things which we on this side consider to have far higher priorities than he and his hon. Friends would place upon them. If we had had the word "increase" in the Amendment he would have used precisely the same argument. He would have said, with his nit-picking mind, that it could mean a 6p increase and, therefore, was meaningless. So, whatever the wording, the right hon. Gentleman, with his great debating skill, would have demolished the argument, at least to his satisfaction if not to anyone else's. But the people who are waiting outside, the pensioners, will not be impressed by that kind of pedantry, because some of them are literally starving.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: What I suggest the pensioner outside would be impressed by is not a provision for an annual review or an increase at particular dates, but the solid fact that, whereas in the 13 years of Conservative Government the real value of the pension rose by 4 per-
    784
    cent., under the six years of Labour Government it rose only by 2½ per cent.
    Mr. Hamilton: I suspect that the old folks in Bromsgrove and Macclesfield will give the answer to the right hon. Gentleman in due course—and in his constituency, too, which might well be marginal in a few months' time if the Government go on as they are doing.
    The old-age pensioners should have the top priority. The £1 per week which they will get in September will be virtually eroded before they get it, and certainly before Christmas, and they will be faced with the prospect of waiting another two years, although the Government are committed to putting up the cost of living.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was quite right in saying the other day that the Prime Minister was having his little joke in the General Election when he said that he would reduce prices "at a stroke", because he is on record as saying that it is time the housewives and the pensioners paid more for their food. It is the deliberate policy of the Government to put up prices. The Minister of Agriculture has said that the meat tax will not come in until July, but the meat tax will hit the pensioner harder than anybody. We may as well put pieces of beef in the British Musuem for all the old-age pensioner can do about it—
    Mr. Stanley Orme: And charge them to see it!
    Mr. Hamilton: Rents are going up. The Minister for Housing and Construction has said that housing subsidies will be slashed by £150 million a year. That means substantial increases in rents. Who will pay them? Pensioners will. I know that if they fill in a form to say they are poor and starving they will get a few bob knocked off the rent.
    The Amendment gets at the very heart of party politics. The Government want to reduce public expenditure. It is not the Government which are giving the pensioners their miserable £1 in September but the higher-paid worker. This House has a strong moral obligation to give the pensioners a handsome increase rather than the miserable pittance which they will get in September.
    I have great respect for the debating capacity of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames. If there is an

    785
    indefensible case to argue, the right hon. Gentleman is the one to argue it convincingly, but this does not make the frying pan sizzle for the old-age pensioners. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman might argue about the merits of the wording of the Amendment, I hope that he will accept the principle of it and that the Government will agree to have yearly reviews because they are under an obligation according to their manifesto. I remember that as soon as they got into opposition they were on this tack. They found more poverty in the country than they had ever thought existed.
    Mr. John Gorst: You created it.
    Mr. Hamilton: They think they are giving luxury to 7 million old people by giving them a pound a week. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
    Mr. Gorst: How much would you offer.
    Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman said that this was the biggest increase ever. I suppose that is so in money terms, but in real terms the biggest increase was in 1946—from 10s. to 26s. at one go. Conservative Members then said that the Labour Government had acted too hastily. Those words have stuck in my gullet ever since. The Conservative Party does not understand and does not care how our old people survive today.
    Mr. F. P. Crowder rose—
    10.30 p.m.
    Mr. Hamilton: No, I will not give way. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) is one of the most absent Members of this House. He comes to the House at this time of night, having earned his "corn" outside, and then presumes to intervene in defence of the old people, about whom he knows nothing at all.
    The people of this country in the last twelve months have suffered the biggest betrayal since Judas. This is why the Government will reject this Amendment. We will hear all the sob-stuff that we have become used to from the Secretary of State, with great compassion and' humanity, so long as he is not asked to do anything very much. It is the same of his junior Minister. I remember him
    786
    almost bringing tears to our eyes when talking about all the poverty that had been created by the Labour Government. Under Tory Governments there has been poverty in this country for centuries. We are a long way from solving it. This Bill will hardly do anything to get the old folk out of their great morass of poverty in which a lot of them have been all their lives.
    Mr. Laurie Pavitt: We are here seeking a matter of elementary justice for the sake of the old people. We all know that the white collar workers and professional people get their increases by way of annual increments, which are given automatically, and that the ordinary workers achieve their increases through bargaining, but the old people have no bargaining power.
    We understand the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who at one time was Minister of Pensions, that the form of words does not make it obligatory on the Treasury to find the money. What we must do is to break through the problem of dealing with the elderly throughout the whole of a period, since at one moment their case is looked at as a matter of yearly intervals and in the following year their supplementary benefits are looked at. The result is and has been that at a time when one benefit goes up my constituents immediately say to me that it is taken away with the other hand because it comes off the supplementary benefits next time.
    We are demanding a review every year leading to the possibility of marrying up increases in prices with increases in pensions so that we are not giving benefits at two different periods, one in one year and the other in the next year. We want the two to march together.
    Nothing is more frustrating or creates a sense of social injustice so much as when old-age pensioners read in the newspapers that they are to get so much more because the benefit has been increased, but find when they go to get it, that what has been given with one hand has been taken away with the other.
    In Committee one argument which was put forward on another Clause concerned administrative difficulties. I had a letter from the Minister about this. I thank him for that letter, but I hope that he

    787
    will give his officials a copy of Sir Ernest Gowers "Plain Words", because, due to the officialese jargon, I had to read it about three times before I could understand it. The argument was that if we had to do this each year we would tie down a number of extra civil servants and it would not be worth doing. The Department has now got itself computerised.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Dehumanised.
    Mr. Pavitt: And dehumanised. The Government talk about less public expenditure, but, as everybody recognises, we shall need about 8,000 more civil servants to collect the value-added tax. I would rather spare some of these people to look after the old-age pensioners. They would then be doing a better job. It is neither administratively impossible nor too expensive for the Department to get to grips with the way that this could be done. An annual review would provide an official yardstick by which everybody could measure.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that there is no obligation on the Treasury to part with money. Those who have to try to get it out of the Treasury know how difficult it is. But if and when we have an official yardstick to measure by, it will be difficult for the Government to resist.
    Throughout the years prices have continued to rise and pensioners and those on fixed incomes have received increases long after prices have gone up. But never in my experience have prices gone up at the rate they have in the last 12 months. This has placed a fantastic burden on old-age pensioners. The Government have recognised this by bringing forward the date for the next increase. They recognise that elderly people will be placed in extreme difficulties if they cannot buy coal at summer prices, but have to wait until winter sets in, because this is one of the greatest costs they have to meet.
    I do not understand why the Government cannot concede on this matter which is so important to the elderly. If they refuse to accept the Clause, they are, in effect, saying that they are not prepared to accept the pressure which will inevitably mount after the review when people
    788
    see the difference between the increases held back over the last few years and the increases in prices.
    Mr. Tom Boardman: Anyone who listened to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would think that the House was divided on its aims. That is not so. We on this side feel just as deeply about the need for compassion and care of the elderly folk about whom he spoke.
    Hon. Members on this side of the House are no less aware of the problems than are hon. Gentlemen opposite. In my constituency I have as many old people living in bungalows on council estates, in the kind of circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred, as there are in the constituency of any hon. Gentleman opposite. I feel no less deeply than the hon. Gentleman does about the need to improve their circumstances.
    The difference between the two sides of the House lies in the means to be adopted for dealing with the situation. I am sure that I should be out of order if I were to develop further the argument about the need to maintain the value of the pension, and the way in which my right hon. Friends are tackling that problem and the many others with which they are faced.
    I recognise the hon. Lady's purpose in putting forward the Clause but, like my right hon. Friend, I do not believe that it would serve its purpose. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has deeply at heart the need to prevent the pension for the old folk from being eroded by rising prices, and our first objective must be to prevent prices from rising. That is our aim, and hon. Gentlemen opposite would serve the cause of these old folk far better if they would stop provoking the inflationary wage spiral.
    I am sure my right hon. Friend does not have to be urged to bear in mind the need to prevent the erosion of this pension increase which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said, is the biggest increase in history, and also the need not to fix a time limit for reviews but to keep the position constantly under review so that we can ensure that these old people, who are the most deserving in our society, do not suffer.
    Mr. Alec Jones: I rise to support the new Clause put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). I do so because, like many hon. Members on this side of the House, I have always held the view, and consistently expressed it, that there should be an annual review. I notice that the Secretary of State is shaking his head. I said that many of my hon. Friends and I have consistently spoken in support of an annual price review. We take that view not because of the special circumstances created by today's rising prices, but because we believe that it is desirable as a principle.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: The National Superannuation Bill, which we discussed at some length last year, recommended a two-yearly increase. That was his Government's proposal.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has done less than justice to himself because, prior to taking part in the debate this evening, I checked through the proceedings on that Bill and I found that every back bencher who spoke, including the hon. Gentleman, thankfully, was in favour of an annual price review. That is the point that I am making. Many hon. Members on this side of the House have always argued in favour of an annual price review, and we have been pleased, on many occasions, to have had the support of some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: It was the hon. Gentleman's Government who resisted us then.
    10.45 p.m.
    Mr. Jones: I would not want to defend everything that a Labour Government did. I assure the House of that. I have far greater expectations from this party than from the Conservative Party. Many of us have argued against our own Government in favour of an annual review in normal circumstances, so it is reasonable to expect that, in the abnormal circumstances created by the Government, we should feel the need even more strongly.
    The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is a brilliant debater—he must have come from some university or other—but when talking about rising prices he did not call
    790
    in aid the Minister of Agriculture, who seems to be persona non grata with the other side. The right hon. Gentleman fairly said that the new Clause only calls for a review. He suggested that if we had a review we would not be compelled to take any action. This may be true of the wording, and this may be what he would expect of a Conservative Government, but it is not what we would expect or demand from a Labour Government.
    If an annual review were undertaken and showed the need for a pensions increase, we would have it from a Labour Government, but I accept his words that there is some doubt that we would have it from a Conservative Government.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, then, that although there might be each year a need under a Labour Government for a pensions increase, such increase would not be granted unless there was a statutory provision compelling them to review?
    Mr. Jones: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman read the Paper before coming into the Chamber, but we put down not only new Clause 2 but also new Clause 1, in which we suggested even better than an annual review—that if the cost of living rose by 5 per cent. or more we would expect a review, even within a twelvemonth.
    The hon. Member for Leicester, Southwest (Mr. Tom Boardman) seemed to think that a difference of means between the two sides was of no importance. Of course there is a difference. This is why we sit on different sides of the House. I cannot see that the means of the Government—6d. off the income tax—will be of much benefit to old age pensioners in my part of the world.
    Some time, some Government will have to accept the need for an annual review for our retirement pensioners. Naturally, we prefer that it be a Labour Government, but if the present Government want to steal those clothes today, tomorrow or next week, we will join them and praise them for doing it.
    The Secretary of State—this applies to any Government—in resisting the need for an annual review, is rather like King Canute, just as foolishly and hopelessly holding back the tide which both sides support. In Committee on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill

    791
    under the Labour Government, on the Pensions Increase Bill under the Government and also on this Bill, whenever the issue of an annual review arose, back benchers of both parties spoke in favour of it.
    The force of the demand for an annual review has been such that when replying to debates of this kind Ministers of Governments of both parties have had to deal with this issue. In the debates on the National Superannuation and Social Insurance Bill, Mr. David Ennals, the then Minister, said, dealing with an Amendment demanding an annual review moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), that the possibility of amending the scheme was not ruled out. That was in February, 1970, and it was clear that the Labour Government were thinking in terms of initiating an annual review. Indeed, in Committee on this Measure the Minister said:
    "The hon. Lady"—
    referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams)
    "would not expect me to give a firm commitment to an annual review today, but I hope that what I have said will reassure her that the matter is open to consideration ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee G, 20th May, 1971; c. 110.]
    Front Bench spokesmen have had to agree that one day an annual review will take place, so strong has been the demand for it.
    However Government spokesmen disguise and cloak the truth—and I say this of both parties—it is clear that the only obstacle to initiating this annual arrangement is the cost. It is time we treated our old-age pensioners better. Virtually every section of wage and salary earners receives pay increases, but the pensioners must face ever-increasing prices without this benefit. Their food, rent and rates are going up all the time. Fortunately it is clear, even if the Government do not accept our proposal, that the next Labour Government will implement this desirable change.
    Mr. Nicholas Scott: There is nothing like a period in opposition to bring out the big, generous heart of the Labour Party. But if one compares the annual lot of the retirement pensioner under the last Conservative
    792
    Government with his lot under the last Labour Government, it is clear that he did consistently better year by year under the Conservatives.
    I am not surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite have an attachment to the annual review idea. During their last period of Government they had an opportunity annually to review the pensions of the over-80s. Each year a Bill was introduced by the Conservatives to provide a pension for the over-80s, and each year it was either squalidly talked out or voted out by the hon. Gentlemen supporting their Government.
    As so often, the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) gave the real reason for this debate—Broms-grove and Macclesfield. It is a stick with which to beat the Government rather than compassion or concern for the elderly that has prompted the Motion.
    There is no magic in the calendar in this matter. I prefer to rely on sustained pressure on the Government of the day from back-benchers on both sides of the House to see that the purchasing power of the retirement pension is maintained and improved.
    Mr. Michael Meacher: I allude to two contributions from the other side of the House, firstly to that of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Very uncharacteristically, he kept to the precise terminology of the new Clause without taking it at all in the spirit in which it was obviously intended. He seemed to suggest that the implementation of a statutory period for consideration of upgrading of pensions would prevent Governments from exercising their enthusiasm for discretionary or earlier improvements in pension levels.
    When the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of Pensions and National Insurance he was not chafing at the bit to raise pensions earlier than the normal biennial review at that time. If there were a shred of evidence that this would prevent Governments from improving the lot of pensioners, that would provide some substance for his argument which it otherwise lacks.
    I do not wish to be drawn into party politics on this matter, but the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) made a blatantly inaccurate

    793
    remark by suggesting that the retirement pensioner faxed worse under the previous Labour Government than he did under the previous Tory Government. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the facts and at journals which have discussed this with academic precision, he will see that the increase in the retirement pension retained its relative value to the end of the biennial review period under the previous Government whereas it only achieved that relationship with average earnings under the previous Tory Government through increases at the beginning of the review period. It is precisely that point which is at issue tonight.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has already made the shock point that the real value of the retirement pension, even after the September uprating, on the latest evidence, will scarcely be preserved above the November, 1969, level, relatively speaking, for any period at all. The aspirations of retirement pensioners for any relative improvement in the real standard of their living over November, 1969, levels have now virtually dwindled out of sight altogether.
    But, bleak though the picture painted by my hon. Friend is, the situation is a good deal more serious in at least two ways. The rate of increases in price rises has been accelerating. Although the jump of over 2.1 per cent. in April of this year referred to by my hon. Friend is the biggest single jump in any month in the index of retail prices for the last 19 years, it conceals the fact that the increase in the index of retail prices over the corresponding month for the year previously has been growing steadily over the last 12 months. The figure in April, 1970, for the rise in the index of retail prices over the year previously was 5.6 per cent. By the end of the year it had risen to 7.9 per cent. By April of this year it had risen to the stunning level of 9.4 per cent. over the level prevailing 12 months previously.
    If this acceleration of price rises continues—the Department of Employment Gazette shows that, according to the little publicised retail price indices of pensioner households their cost of living has been rising faster than the average—the upgraded pension will fail to achieve any real improvement over November,
    794
    1969 levels even at the period of its implementation.
    The Labour Government made clear their intention to continue the practice of uprating the retirement pension to match improvements in the standard of living of the rest of the community. The White Paper "Public Expenditure 1968–69 to 1973–74" published in December, 1969, provided for an uprating on these lines in the autumn of this year.
    Therefore, a double sacrifice has been involuntarily inflicted on retirement pensioners. They are willy nilly being forced to forgo this promised uprating to match the rise in prosperity of the rest of the community. Second, unless the Clause is accepted, they will hardly be able to achieve the relative standard of living prevailing at November, 1969, even at the start of the review period, let alone at the end.
    I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Clause as an expression of our sincere and determined concern. It is the only means to hand for the Government at present to ensure that proper safeguards can be provided for a very large and growing section of the community who are, and who always have been, unduly defenceless and unduly dependent on the political favours of the day.
    Mr. John Gorst: I oppose the Clause, because it is important that any review, be it annual or biennial, should accept a principle as regards the elderly retired. We should accept that there are some elderly retired people who are in much greater need than others.
    In particular, there are those between 75 and 80, and more especially those over 80, who have been retired for, say, 10 years and who are not merely faced with the problems which are presented to them—to be non-controversial about this—by one Government or another in terms of rising prices and the ability or inability of Governments to deal with inflation. Over and above the problems of rising prices, there is for these elderly people aged from 75 to, say, 90 the problem of the replacement of the equipment that they probably purchased during the early days of their retirement or just before their retirement.

    795
    There is, therefore, undoubtedly a greater need for some retired people than there is for others. It is because the Clause is concerned universally with benefits for all retired people, without identifying the needs of particularly retirement pensioners, that I intend to oppose it.
    Mr. Eric Heffier: Some of the arguments used by hon. Gentlemen on the other side have been exceedingly tortuous. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), whom we know as an extremely able debater, and the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), put forward some remarkable arguments. The hon. Member for Hendon, North in his brief speech reveals the underlying thinking of the Tory Party about selectivity. He is saying that there should be more means tests and that this is what the Government are beginning to introduce. We are finding this in just about everything.
    Old-age pensioners are increasingly forced to fill in more and more forms There is the question of prescription charges, dental charges and rent and rate rebates. The hon. Gentleman wants to extend it even further. He wants to get back to the days when there were very strict means tests for any benefits. The Labour Party does not take that view. They believe that certain benefits are payable by right. There are too many means tests. There were far too many even with the Labour Government.
    Mr. Gorst: I fully understand the hon. Member's point about the views of his own party. But would he concede that where it is possible to be selective you can be much more generous in what is provided for those who really need it? Therefore there is not the wastage.
    Mr. Heffer: It does not work like that. It works the other way round. People do not get benefits unless they fill in forms and subject themselves to means tests. This is the reality of the whole argument of selectivity and means tests.
    The right hon. Gentleman put up a magnificent smokescreen of an argument. He said that this proposal would work to the pensioners' disadvantage. If he thinks there should be less than a year
    796
    between reviews he should have put down an amendment or a new Clause of his own to provide for this.
    I am amazed that whenever there are progressive suggestions from whichever side of the House hon. Gentlemen—in particular from the Conservative side, but I am afraid sometimes from our side—can find a million reasons why they cannot be carried out. After 20 years' of argument in the House of Commons they finally go through and not another word is heard about them. It is miraculously discovered that those things which could not be done can be achieved after all. This will be true of the annual review.
    There is a real difference between members on this side of the House and those on the Conservative side. When we were in Government our backbenchers were constantly raising the question of an annual review. On all manner of occasions, by Amendments, by speeches or by Questions, Labour backbenchers urged that there should be an annual review.
    I get a little tired of this argument about who did better for old-age pensioners. No Government have done well enough for old-age pensioners, whether Labour, Tory or any other. We have left the old people too long to fend for themselves, and we all ought to be ashamed of ourselves.
    I remember Mr. Macmillan, when he was Prime Minister, making an extremely interesting speech in which he said that we should do far more for old people. He was right. Let us have something done, and let us stop arguing about whether we did a bit better than the Tories did. I consider that our Government did, in fact, do better, but, irrespective of that, we did not do enough, and certainly the present Government are not doing enough now.
    The question of an annual review is of importance for another reason. Many years ago, I sat on a tribunal which heard people's appeals, and one thing which I remember well—one morning in particular—was that a succession of people said to us, "We cannot understand this. They promised us a 7s. 6d. increase"—I think that that was the figure at the time—"but we have ended up with Is. 3d." Why?—because in the previous year they were on supplementary benefit,

    797
    as it is now called, and along with their increase in pension they found a reduction in something else, in tobacco and sweets tokens, I think it was, which were advantages given to old people at that time.
    They said, "We are being kidded". That is what they say on every occasion. They will say it again now. People on supplementary benefit will not have the full increase.
    In any case, therefore, we should have both reviews together. There should be an annual review for both pension and supplementary benefit. We are tired of saying this in the House. It seems so obvious and simple—no genius is called for to see what is required—but it seems that Governments can never do the simple and obvious. I do not know why. It is about time we did the obvious. My hon. Friends, notably my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), who have argued this case, are absolutely right. It ought to be done now.
    In the last year, there has been an increase of between 8 and 10 per cent. in food prices. At some stage, and inevitably if we go into the Common Market, we shall face the problem of the value added tax. Whether we like it or not, and even if the Conservative Government bring the tax in and do not apply it to food, in due course, when the harmonisation policies of the E.E.C. are put into effect, it will have to apply to food as well. The consequence for old people will be constant rises in their cost of food, and far higher than they are having now.
    11.15 p.m.
    If we are to face that sort of situation—I hope not, but the decision will be taken by the House at another time—there must be at least an annual review. I hope that it would be less than an annual review, that a year would be the maximum period. If there are rapid price increases within three months there should be a review and an increase within three months. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames at least to the extent that it is no good reviewing something if one does not do something about it. Review in itself is not the answer; we must ensure that an increase results from it.
    798
    I hope that the Secretary of State will accept our argument, but I do not think that he will, despite his suavity. He is a nice bloke in many respects. Unfortunately, I happen to be on the Committee considering the Social Security Bill. All our persuasive arguments there make not the slightest difference. We just get voted down. Behind the right hon. Gentleman's suave, friendly appearance he has not a heart of gold but a heart of flint. Therefore, I have a horrible feeling that the Government will not accept our argument tonight.
    Be it on their head. There is a great deal of common sense in the argument, and it is about time the Government—whichever party is in power—accepted this principle.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I have listened with the greatest interest to the speeches of Labour hon. Members. I had hoped to hear the answer to a question I frequently ask myself about pensions. All of us will retire one day, and we must all hope for a long and prosperous retirement. Therefore, the desire that there should be a redistribution of the nation's income in favour of the old is not confined to hon. Members opposite. We must all want that.
    When we compare the performance of the parties since the war we see that that of my party shines by comparison with that of the Labour Party. That must be admitted. There may not be many pensioners alive today who remember the great inflation of 1950 and 1951. If hon. Members opposite searched their memories and asked themselves what the Labour Party did in those days, they would not be too cocky.
    Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman must be fair. He knows that the vast price increases between 1950 and 1951 were directly consequent upon the Korean War.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon Gentleman has brought a note of realism into his remarks. I accept what he said.
    It is of interest that new Clause 1 was ruled out of order and new Clause 2 was selected instead. The reason, unless I am misinformed, is that new Clause 1 requires a charge upon the people. That is what is implicit in all the speeches by hon. Members opposite. But what

    799
    we have not heard is any suggestion as to how an increase in pensions would be paid for. I hope that no one would ever accuse me of not trying to be specific on questions of social security reform.
    My compatriot, the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones), said that when he and other hon. Members pressed, during consideration of the Superannuation Act, for an annual increase to become automatic, his Government resisted that proposal. But he did not tell us why. If the proposal is resisted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tonight, the reason is very likely to be the same.
    Mr. Alec Jones: On that occasion we were dealing with not a small Bill but a complete reorganisation of our social security policy. The Minister, David Ennals, who replied, indicated clearly that, because of the scale of the changes we were embarked upon, he had to support a biennial review, but he went on to use the words which I quoted—that he did not rule out the chance of an annual review.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: It is self-evident that everybody would like pensioners to be given the best possible deal, but the basic pension is paid for by a system of money-transfer and not out of an accumulation of capital which has been saved by the pensioners. The money arises from those at work and is transferred to those who have retired.
    I had hoped that hon. Members opposite, even if they were bound by the rules of order in their selection of the words on the Amendment Paper and therefore were bound to table a new Clause which had little value except as a talking point, would have been realistic in their speeches and would have said precisely what their party would have done. They must convince the House and the pensioners about what they would do. If they propose to increase the redistribution of income under the money-transfer system to give extra benefits to a certain class, they must specify what class of people will do less well. Hon. Members opposite have not told us that.
    I dare say that they will say that I am asking too much in expecting them to commit themselves. They have been
    800
    making electioneering speeches—and God bless them; this is a democratic system—but they must not expect to carry conviction. The oldest people in the community are often the shrewdest, and they know which party is making the promises and which is making the election speeches.
    We are in an exceptional year for inflation, and I hope that we shall never see such a year again where change in the value of money is concerned. But what hon. Members opposite must do—and I assure them that hon. Members on this side of the House are doing it—is to work out a specific plan which will protect the pensioners. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), in his sensible but too brief speech, stopped short of being specific. He mentioned Harold Macmillan, who said, "The pensioners are the people who have brought us to where we are". The object of that remark was to show that now we must carry them with us where we are going. But we must devise a mechanism for this. It is not good enough for the House simply to make election speeches and to use the pensioners as an electoral punchball. We must make specific recommendations, and we have not heard any tonight. Until the House is ready to be specific as to how the money is to be raised to give the increase in pensions, it is not reasonable to expect the Government to act.
    Mr. Pavitt: The hon. Gentleman has asked us to be specific. This year the Conservative Party raised £330 million by a number of charges and gave £350 million back in the form of a sixpenny reduction in income tax. In 1964 the Labour Government pledged to give the pensioners £300 million. We gave it in the only way possible—by putting sixpence on tax and sixpence on petrol. That was a great act of courage. That is fact, not theory.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: The hon. Gentleman is ignoring that there are two ways to increase the availability of money for pensioners. One is by increasing productivity. High taxation works against increases in productivity. That must be accepted by hon. Members opposite. In the long run, we shall aid pensioners best by increases in productivity. But, in the short run, we can do it only by increasing charges on the working people. I hope

    801
    that before this debate closes we shall hear specific commitments from hon. Members opposite that that is the way in which the Labour Party would do it.
    Mr. Loughlin: I will detain the House for two minutes and I will not appeal to the other side of the House because I know that any appeal that I make on behalf of the great mass of the working-class people, let alone working-class pensioners, would be to no avail. I have given up hope of their ever looking at any issue involving working-class people on a compassionate basis or even on a fair basis.
    I want to deal with two points and the first is that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I do not wish to oppose him but it is necessary to explain things a little so that pensioners are not hoodwinked into believing that an increase is given with one hand and taken away with the other.
    The review of the supplementary pensions on a yearly basis was a method by which an additional advance payment was made. If we take the increases in pensions over the last six years and the increase in supplementary pensions we would find that there would be a difference of 6p. Paying the part pension one years as supplementary pension does not mean that old-age pensioners are being robbed, it means that those on supplementary benefits are getting half of the two-yearly review in advance. That ought to be made clear because we ought not to perpetuate this myth.
    My second point is to do with the annual review. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the new Clause was not specific in that it only said that a review should take place. I have never heard a more barren argument. I would assume that if this House gave what would almost be an instruction to the Government of the day to review pensions on an annual basis it would be looked upon as an instruction to produce an increase in pensions annually. True the new Clause does not say that there shall be an increase but there have been many such clauses introduced into legislation. I find it surprising that this argument should be used by the right hon. Member because if anyone knows anything about pensions and methods of introduction and
    802
    improvement it is him. I have no faith in hon. Members opposite; I have no hope for them. I hope only that they will go.
    Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I am constrained to make a short intervention because I get the clear impression from hon. Members opposite that they feel that no one on this side of the House is in favour of an annual review. If they will consult the reports of the Standing Committee or ask their colleagues who sat on that Committee with me they will see that when the hon. Lady moved a similar Amendment I indicated support for the idea.
    Mr. William Hainling: How did the hon. Gentleman vote?
    11.30 p.m.
    Mr. McCrindle: If the hon. Gentleman will look at how some of my hon. Friends voted on another Clause, he will not accuse us of lack of courage. We finally voted against the Amendment on the annual review, and herein lies my whole argument. It is not sufficient merely to dismiss the argument of my hon. Friend then, which I suspect will be put again by him tonight. To indicate to old people that by waving a magic wand we can introduce an annual review and then find that administrative machinery is not available is no contribution. This was a valid argument put forward by the Labour Government, and it is no less valid now. Hon. Members should accept that they are pushing at an open door in pressing for a move towards an annual review. They should be pressing this Government, as they pressed the last Government, to create the machinery for an annual review. This would be a much more realistic approach.
    I accept that inflation affects old people particularly, especially rising food prices. We on this side of the House have compassion for the old people. We accept that there is a movement towards the annual submission of wage claims by working people, and believe that there is a strong argument in favour of assisting old people towards a similar position. When old people have to look two years into the future for the prospect of an increase, the situation can be difficult. An annual review would provide a lifebelt for old people, and to that extent

    803
    I accept the idea. But we run the risk of misleading the old people if we pretend that all we have to do is to press a skinflint Government to be more generous and all will be well. We must press for the creation of machinery.
    The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) says that he has given up hope that from the Government side of the House there will emerge any generosity or compassion. As I listen to him, I give up hope of any real possibility of pensions being finally taken out of the inter-party discussion which ranges across the Floor of the House. The idea behind the new Clause has my general support but I hope that when, as I predict, we hear from the Under-Secretary of State that there are administrative reasons why it cannot be introduced now. hon. Gentlemen opposite will think again.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I deplore the yahoo sort of debate that often takes place between the two sides on pensions. This consists of saying which Government have done the most in past years. But that sort of argument really gets the pensioner nowhere. We may have our differences on the matter of selectivity, social benefits, and so on, but I believe that among hon. Members on both sides there is a real compassion for pensioners.
    Surely we must try to take pensions out of party politics. It certainly does not matter to the individual pensioner who takes the credit for anything he gets. What the pensioner is concerned about is the amount of his pension and whether it will be enough to cope with the prices this week, next week and the week after that. We must try to move towards a comprehensive pension scheme which automatically gives pension increases linked either to the cost of living or, even better, to average earnings. I hope that we shall do something on these lines very quickly.
    This new Clause is a real first step towards the much more comprehensive system that most of us would like to see. I hope that the Government will not reply with all the administrative arguments. If what is proposed can be done without administrative difficulties on an annual review basis in Sweden and Germany, why cannot we do it here? I hope that even at this late stage the Government
    804
    will change their mind and say that they will grant this first step towards an annual review.
    Mr. Kenneth Marks: Last year I moved an Amendment to my own Government's pension legislation to provide for a biennial instead of an annual review. The arguments then put forward called in aid administrative difficulties, the burden of cost involved and also the fact that annual rises in costs were not sufficient to justify what I was suggesting. Two of those arguments have been completely destroyed by the rise in the cost of living in the last twelve to fifteen months. The only argument left is that of cost.
    I do not accept that it would be difficult to carry out an annual review of pensions. Almost every other arrangement is carried out on an annual basis, including the Budget, local authority rating, and supplementary benefits. Furthermore, increases in incomes or dividends occur at annual intervals. Why should the pension be excluded from this general rule. During the period of office of the Labour Government, David Ennals mentioned in terms of the loss to pensions a figure of £80 million a year, and this injustice has continued for a long time. There is confusion among old-age pensions because supplementary benefits are increased annually whereas the National Insurance pension is not. There is no valid reason why there should be this distinction.
    Concerning the increase being paid in September, I think that the Government have got their priorities wrong. I know that it takes five months from making the decision to paying the increase. I accept that it cannot be done in less time because of the administrative arrangements. Had the decision and the announcement to increase pensions been made at the same time as the announcement to knock sixpence off income tax, the old-age pensioners could have had their rise in March or April. That is what the Labour Government did in 1966. That is what this Government should have done.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): The new Clause asks for an annual review of pensions and other

    805
    benefits. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out that a request for an annual review does nothing for the interests of pensioners. The Government are committed to keep the rate of pensions and other benefits under continual review—that is the thing which matters—so that they can respond to needs and circumstances as they arise and take the necessary action on them.
    Mr. Marks: If that is the Government's policy, why have they introduced biennial instead of continuous reviews in their Pensions (Increase) Bill this week?
    Mr. Dean: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed with my argument. I think he will probably find that I shall deal with the point he has raised on another Bill upstairs with which he has been concerned.
    It is strange to find the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) coming forward at this late stage with what, for the Opposition, is a completely new policy. The previous Bill to reconstruct the National Insurance scheme, which was brought forward in the last Parliament, contained no indication of annual reviews. In fact, quite the contrary. It clearly stated—the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) nods, and the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) knows this, too—that reviews were to take place every two years; no more, no less. That was the then Government's position at that time.
    When they brought forward that Bill the cost of living was rising very fast. It had risen by over 11 per cent. between the increase in pension in 1967 and the increase in 1969. Despite that position, the commitment was for a two-year review rather than for an annual review. Today we find the Opposition coming forward with a completely different policy and story.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Will the hon Gentleman give way on this point?
    Mr. Dean: This sudden change of front within 12 months of going into opposition will not carry much conviction in this House or in the country. I will give way to the hon. Lady now.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The hon. Gentleman must not produce such
    806
    amazing indignation at this stage. He will recall that in Committee I asked the specific question:
    "… will he give the Committee the promise that there will be an interim up-rating for pensions to bring them in line with the cost of living should it continue to increase at something very much more than the estimates of all previous Ministers that that increase would not be more than 5 per cent. a year?"—[OFFICIAI REPORT, Standing Committee G. 18th May 1971; c. 89.]
    The hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that I am coming forward on Report with a brand new idea.
    Mr. Dean: This is completely different At least two hon. Gentlemen opposite have frankly admitted that their own Front Bench was at fault; that they were urging annual reviews and their own Front Bench refused to concede the point. This is powerful evidence which is being produced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a strange situation that we get this sudden change of front and are presented with a new Clause which would do nothing in practical terms to help pensioners.
    May I deal briefly with the Government's position on this. The first point is that this increase, which, if the House approves the Bill, is due to operate in September, is the biggest increase ever, and we can say with confidence that it will more than restore the value of the rate of pension that was introduced in November, 1969.
    Mr. Marks: For how long?
    11.45 p.m.
    Mr. Dean: Over and above that, there is the age addition for those over 80, and there is the chronic sick package. That will mean that these most needy sections of the community will not only get the biggest increase ever in money terms on their basic benefit, but will get something over and above that to reflect the additional needs which we believe they have.
    Mr. Meacher rose—
    Mr. Dean: May I deal with this, because I think that I shall cover the point made by the hon. Gentleman.
    The next point—and this is action, which speaks very much louder than words—is that the Government have already responded to the price situation

    807
    by advancing the increase in benefits from November, which would be the end of the two-year period, to September of this year. There is, therefore, value in having the flexibility which the present situation gives us.
    The next point is, of course, the supplementary benefit, and here the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), with his experience as a Minister in the Department where I now am, corrected his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Hefter) when he said that because the increase in supplementary benefit which has been customary for some years comes each year, it means that when it comes in the year in which the pension is being increased it is not as high as for the National Insurance pensioner because an instalment, as it were, had come the year before, but the total for the two years was the same. I confirm that that is right, and I emphasise to the House that for those who are most in need, those who are most vulnerable to rising prices—namely, those on supplementary benefit—it has been customary for some years for the increase to be made annually.
    Mr. Heffer: No one has corrected me. I understood the position perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) was explaining the position, and what he said adds weight to the case for an annual review to bring the two things into line. Even if there is a full explanation of the position, pensioners still feel that they are being cheated. That is the important thing, and that adds strength to the argument that the two reviews should be brought into line.
    Mr. Dean: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I concede that it is not altogether easy to explain to those who are on supplementary benefit the complicated arithmetic that has to take place in the year when National Insurance pensions are increased. But, having conceded that, I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if we are to respond readily, and at frequent intervals, to those who are most vulnerable to price increases, the increase each year is the best way to do that. What the hon. Gentleman is really saying is that we should increase supplementary
    808
    benefits only every other year, or that both benefits should be increased every year.
    But as long as we have an annual increase, which has been customary for some years now, this is the best way in which we can help those who are most in need. These are ways in which we have already shown that we are responding to the price situation and that we are doing our utmost to see that pensioners, the very old, the sick, the disabled and those who are unemployed get an increase in their benefit which will more than restore the purchasing power of that benefit.
    When one considers the record of this Government in this field over a short period of 12 months one realises that we are entitled to be taken at our word when we say that we intend to go on as we have started, caring for the interests of those who are in receipt of benefits, National Insurance and supplementary benefits. The first Bill which this Government put to this Parliament was a Bill to provide pensions for the over-80s and for widows between 40 and 50, and to start the attendance allowance for the severely disabled. Actions speak louder than words.
    My right hon. Friend is entitled to be believed when he has made a firm commitment that we shall go on looking after pensioners and others in future as we have done this last 12 months.
    Mr. Loughlin: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, how many of the over-80 pensioners were receiving supplementary benefit in excess of the pension which they will receive when they are entitled to it?
    Mr. Dean: Many of them are receiving the benefit fully because they were not getting supplementary benefit.
    Mr. Loughlin: How many?
    Mr. Dean: Many.
    Mr. Neil Kinnock: The fact that several of my hon. Friends would have liked the opportunity to answer some of the points which the Under-Secretary made at the end of his speech more or less imposes an obligation on me to try to answer them, although I did not take part in the lengthy Committee

    809
    stage. Unfortunately for the hon. Gentleman and his party's credibility—he is not helping by reiterating these half truths—the pensioners know so well how the Conservative Government stole so much of their so-called pensions programme of the last year from the Labour Government.
    If the hon. Gentleman went to a pensioners' rally or a pensioners' meeting like those which I and my hon. Friends have attended in the last 12 months and said the same words with the same conviction as he has in the last five minutes, he would be laughed out of that meeting by a generation of people who are a great deal less abrasive than my generation and are prepared to give much more welcome to guests. His remarks would have showed so much contempt for their understanding of the pensioners' situation that he would have deserved every bit of the ridicule that he would doubtless have received.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) made a trenchant point when he referred to the letter which he had received from the Department. He said that it was in an obscure officialese, a special language. The person who is writing that letter must be the same person who is writing the series of forms that it has been our displeasure to know in the post offices and social security offices.
    Hon. Members who do constituency work will know that many people who are collecting these forms—old-age pensioners and persons who qualify for the various benefits—are finding the documents incomprehensible. Constituents of mine have asked me to do a comprehension exercise on forms from the Department.
    Mr. Dean: The letter which I wrote to his hon. Friend, copies of which I sent to other hon. Members who I thought would be interested in the subject, was on a highly detailed administrative matter. I thought that, as a matter of courtesy, it would be well to tell them of the administrative complications that were involved in the point they had raised and with which I was not able to deal fully in Committee. That is why the letter was complicated.
    Mr. Kinnock: I appreciate that, and I hope my point about the confusing wording
    810
    of other documents published by the Department will not be overlooked. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the detailed treatment he gave to the point raised by my hon. Friend and dealt with in his letter.
    Requests have been made tonight, as they were in the Supply Day debate we had recently on pensions, to take the question of pensions out of politics. The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) thought that the interests of pensioners could be safeguarded by the efforts of back benchers as they battered away at Governments on behalf of the aged. I suggest that the pensioners would not have much confidence in that suggestion or in our ability to see that they have sufficient money to keep them going throughout the year.
    At the General Election and since the Government have shown their desire to apply a system of selectivity to social service provision generally. This will probably be their future policy, although there is a basic weakness in it, particularly when applied to the pension. The overwhelming majority of pensioners—indeed, almost all of them—are in the category of the needy. It is pointless to talk about selectivity in this context and of the needy and the less needy, and for us to talk in terms of redistributing the pool of wealth among them is contemptible.
    Question put and negatived.

  Clause 1

    REVISION OF CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER INSURANCE ACT
    Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'contributions' to end of line 11.
    If it is convenient, I suggest that we discuss at the same time Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (4).
    The effect of these two Amendments is to remove the provision for the voluntary payment of Class III contributions for those over the age of 60. This proposal was originally designed to meet criticisms concerning a proposal regarding unemployment benefit for occupational pensioners. That provision was struck out in Committee, so there is no need for the contributions concession.

    811
    Anyone who satisfies the normal availability condition will be able to get the credits in the usual way and will have no liability to pay contributions. If a person cannot get the credits because he cannot satisfy the availability condition, he will continue to be liable to pay the contributions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Dean.]

  Clause 8

    BENEFITS UNDER INDUSTRIAL INJURIES ACT
    12 midnight
    Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 9, line 36, at end insert:
    (aa) he is entitled to an increase under section 14 of this Act (special hardship allowance) of a disablement pension of an amount not less than that which at that time is specified in paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to this Act, or.
    I apologise to the House on two counts, first because of having to move this Amendment at this late hour and, second, because I am raising a somewhat technical matter. However, it is concerned with a subject of considerable importance. I have indicated to the Minister on several occasions that I would seek any and every opportunity of moving similar Amendments.
    For the benefit of the House, I will try to be brief, yet sufficient in my explanation to justify the Amendment. For some time—'here I warn the Minister that it will also be for some time in the future—I have sought to alleviate the injustice which is felt very strongly by the widows of miners who during their lifetime are certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis but whose subsequent death is held to be caused by emphysema, chronic bronchitis or some combination of these diseases, for the decision that death was not caused by a prescribed industrial disease means that the widow is denied industrial death benefit. If this were all, this would not be a very serious matter, since the amount of money difference is not great. But, because these widows are denied industrial death benefit, they also fail to qualify for certain ancillary benefits to which their hus-
    812
    bands have contributed out of joint funds raised by them as miners, by their union and by the Coal Board. Above all, as this affects widows of such miners in South Wales, they are denied the benefit of the concessionary coal allowance, an allowance which these men and their wives have enjoyed for a good many years.
    Those of us who live in and represent mining constituencies know the suffering which these pneumoconiotics undergo during their lifetime and the deep sense of injustice felt by these widows when they are denied industrial death benefit.
    Briefly summarising the case, I mention four main points. First, these men were said to be suffering from pneumoconiosis and were registered as such not by themselves, nor by their general medical practitioner, but by a medical board or panel appointed by the Minister. The registration and certification was not of their making nor of their choosing.
    Second, it is agreed by most general practitioners who work in mining constituencies that it is extremely difficult to accurately diagnose pneumoconiosis. Most miners are extremely critical of the methods used; not critical of the people concerned but critical because they appreciate the almost impossible task of effectively deciding whether a person is suffering from the disease.
    Thirdly, on a rather personal and humane point, if the widow is to have a hope of qualifying for industrial death benefit, she has to decide, usually within hours and at most within days of her husband's death, whether she will accept a post-mortem. Many widows feel strongly that they should not suffer further when their husbands have suffered for years from pneumoconiosis, which is a serious ailment. It may be illogical, but that is how they feel.
    Finally, there are countries—one irony is that South Africa is one of them—in which emphysema and chronic bronchitis are prescribed industrial diseases. These widows and many of my colleagues feel that if that provision is good enough for South Africa it ought to be good enough for Britain.
    Clause 8 gave me the opportunity to put forward the Amendment. The Clause helps some of these cases. I have thanked the Minister in Committee, and on

    813
    another Bill, for this small assistance. It helps those who receive a constant attendance allowance. These are the worst of the pneumoconiotics, but the number is small. The Clause as it stands only scratches the surface of the problem. The new Section (1A)(a) refers to cases other than miners, and we are glad that cover is extended to anyone who suffers similarly.
    If a miner is in receipt of constant attendance allowances, on his death his widow or other dependant automatically becomes entitled to industrial death benefit. This cannot be described as opening the door. It can at best be described as putting a crack in the door frame.
    The new Section (1A)(a) makes industrial death benefit payable to those in receipt of constant attendance allowance—that is, where the disability is at least 100 per cent. and where constant attendance is needed. I ask the Government to widen the scope of this improvement to cover those in receipt of special hardship allowance. Those people are by definition unable, as a result of the disease which they are certified to be suffering from, either to work in their regular job or to undertake work of a similar standard.
    Neither the Under-Secretary nor I knows how long we will be in the House of Commons. Other people decide that. As long as the Minister occupies the post he now occupies, and as long as I am a Member, I shall seek any and every opportunity to move similar Amendments and thus raise this matter with him.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: It is difficult to resist speaking in support of an Amendment which has appended to it the names of such distinguished hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) has presented a powerful and persuasive case. He has explained that the Amendment is a technical one. However, my hon. Friend speaks with considerable personal experience of individual cases in South Wales.
    It may be argued that the Amendment could be drafted differently. If that is the Minister's view, I know that my hon. Friend will be prepared to await an
    814
    improvement, in another place, in the Bill along the lines he is suggesting.
    The Amendment, if accepted, would not require much additional expenditure. For the reasons given by my hon. Friend, it would be expenditure well worth while incurring. My hon. Friend explained that there is a feeling of serious injustice. My hon. Friend seeks to help people who are at disadvantage at times of bereavement. The Under-Secretary will respect the strength of the case. I hope that he can respond favourably.
    Dame Irene Ward: I do not know what answer my hon. Friend will give to this amendment, but I want in general to support the case which has been put forward. Ever since I have been in the House of Commons these diseases have been the subject of medical argument. It would satisfy a great number of people, not only the widows but also the miners, if we could devise a scheme. It took a great deal of hard work in the past to get some of these diseases accepted into our social services system. I am certain my own Ministers would not turn down an Amendment which had a strong case unless there were considerable reasons for so doing.
    I remember when I first came to the House of Commons the then Conservative Government was having difficulties over miner's nystagmus. It set up a special committee through the Home Office to examine the case medically and to produce a report from people who were qualified to comment on the disease. If I remember correctly, the then hon. Member for Somerset, North, Sir Edwin Leather, always took a great interest and spoke a great deal on pneumoconiosis and one or two other miners' industrial diseases and he made some progress. I am not in a position to comment medically on these diseases, but I have been impressed with the speeches I have heard and the cases that have been put forward.
    The House of Commons has to be very careful before it turns down a suggestion which comes from people like hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House who can speak with experience. It worries me that having heard all these arguments over the years we have not arrived at a proper solution. Whatever the Government's reply to this Amendment, it would be satisfying to have an assurance that this matter will be looked

    815
    at by people who are qualified to do so. I am not referring to the issue of the widows who have to take a decision so quickly. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that this is a human problem.
    If the Minister cannot accept the Amendment—and I imagine he cannot since it was not accepted in Standing Committee, will he give some help and consolation and say that the matter can be looked at by qualified persons so that we do our utmost to deal with a problem which it has taken the House of Commons so long to solve?
    12.15 a.m.
    Mr. Kinnock: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) on his explicit exposition of the case for the Amendment, which is supported with great depth of feeling by many people in the mining communities, especially by miners' widows in South Wales. Also, I wish to put myself in accord with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in the comments which she has just made. We know of her long interest in this problem.
    I have not held a Saturday morning interview session or visited a street in my constituency when the subject of concessionary coal has not been raised, by miners' families, by miners themselves, or by widows of miners. The amount involved by acceptance of the Amendment would be negligible, but it would open a welcome door in terms of benefits. For the women who have kept men in our pits over two generations, the grant of concessionary coal would be a gift of immeasurable value, for they are in desperate need of assistance towards fuel, as is every pensioner, and, in addition, they have felt a sense of deep injustice in that, after giving a family lifetime, and their husband's lives, to coal mining, there is not some sort of reward for the effort which they have put in as human beings.
    If the Minister will say either that he accepts the Amendment or that he is thinking along these lines, he will earn not only the gratitude of all hon. Members from mining areas but the gratitude of the widows, if no one else, in South Wales.
    Mr. Pavitt: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) for putting his case so well on this, I think, third time of asking in the last few months. He has deployed his argument with equal skill on each occasion. I well remember the time when we discussed the matter in Committee, and I can assure the hon. Lady that, even if the Minister's heart is not wide open, it is, I am sure, at least half open, as his previous replies showed.
    Were there miners in Hayes and Har-lington, and my hon. Friend had used his eloquence in that area, there would, I am sure have been an even larger swing than 16·8 per cent. for Labour, giving even more decisive victory, if that were needed
    On the medical aspect of the matter, we had similar considerations before us in Committee. So often, there are marginal differences on which a medical opinion has to be passed and a decision made as to what was the precise complaint. On another Clause, we had a discussion about amputees, and there was a good deal of support for what we urged then. There is always the difficulty that some unfortunate medical officer has to make a decision in the last analysis, and this leads to the sort of problems in times of distress to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West referred.
    The Government may say that there may well be a marginal area in which one is not sure whether a case qualifies. Not so many millions of pounds are involved as to put the proposal out of court. Let them say that the benefit of the doubt should go to the widow. We should, as far as possible, do away with the probings and examinations which now go on to decide whether the chest complaint was pneumoconiosis, emphysema or chronic bronchitis, or whether, in fact, the chap had cancer of the lung through smoking too much. One of the most bitter things about community relations in the mining areas is the feeling that the Establishment is not aware of the problems of miners' illnesses. If the Under-Secretary cannot accept the Amendment at this time, I hope that he will give an assurance that before the

    817
    Bill becomes an Act the point will be met.
    Mr. Dean: Although I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, I hope that what I am about to say will reassure those who have spoken.
    As the hon. Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. Alec Jones) acknowledged in moving the Amendment, the Clause makes progress in the area with which it is concerned. The whole House sympathises with, and wishes to do more for, the widows of men who have died as a result of industrial accidents and diseases, and those who have died as a result of war injuries. The progress made in this respect by the Clause is very real. It will help the widows. It will provide an automatic pension for widows of certain badly disabled men who have not had a great deal of attention during their lifetimes and hitherto in some cases did not get a pension. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman conceded that this is progress. But what he proposes here, which is slightly different from what he proposed in Committee, is a substantial and radical change in the industrial injury scheme.
    The matter is being considered now. We have a specialist body which advises the Government on these matters—the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council—which is engaged on a fundamental review of industrial injuries and provisions on pneumoconiosis, which is the matter particularly concerning the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members. This is a very difficult area. When that review is taking place it would be unwise to proceed further than we propose in the Clause and to open a very wide gate as the hon. Gentleman proposes. I hope that in the circumstances he will feel it right to withdraw the Amendment and to enable the Council to proceed with its review.
    Mr, Pavitt: When does the hon. Gentleman expect to receive the result of that review?
    Mr. Dean: I cannot say exactly, but I hope that it will be some time next year.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 14

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 13, line 28, leave out from 'Act' to 'shall' in line 29 and insert:
    ' the Old Cases Act and other enactments relating to benefit under those Acts '.
    This is a technical Amendment to correct an error.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 1
    PROVISIONS TO BE SUBSTITUTED IN SCHEDULE I TO NATIONAL INSURANCE ACT 1965
    Amendment made: No. 4, in page 17, line 23, leave out '60' and insert '65'.—[Mr. Dean.]
  Schedule 5

    MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendment made: No. 7, in page 23, line 41, at end insert:
    Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948
    1. In section 2(1) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 after the word 'sickness' there shall be inserted the words 'or invalidity'.—[Mr. Dean.]

  Schedule 6

    COMMENCEMENT AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
    Mr. Dean: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 27, line 34, at end insert:
    3.—(1) An order of the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Fire Services Act 1947 varying a scheme for the time being in force under that section and made before the expiration of six months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act may include provisions relating to pensions payable to persons who have been members of a fire brigade but have ceased to be so before the date when the order comes into operation, if the order states that those provisions are made in consequence of section 3 of this Act or section 13A of the Industrial Injuries Act.
    (2) Notwithstanding anything in section 3 of the Police Pensions Act 1948, regulations made under section I of that Act before the expiration of six months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act may include provisions relating to pensions payable to persons who have been members of a police force but have ceased to be so before the

    819
    date when the regulations come into opera-lion, if the regulations state that those provisions are made in consequence of section 3 of this Act or section 13A of the Industrial Injuries Act.
    The need for this Amendment arises because of the change brought about by Clause 3, which substitutes invalidity benefit for sickness benefit after 168 days of incapacity for work. The Police Pensions Scheme provides for ordinary pensions related to length of service on retirement due to ill health and for supplemental pensions on retirement resulting from injury received in the execution of duty. Sickness benefit is at the moment taken into account in calculating the supplemental pension. Similar provision is made in the Fire Services Scheme.
    This Amendment will give power to take the new invalidity benefit into account where necessary after sickness benefit ceases. I understand that the precise way to do this will be determined after consultation with the Police Council for the United Kingdom and the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, and the resulting amending regulations or scheme will be laid before the House. In other words, the Amendment in no way prejudges the outcome of the matter. It merely gives power to make changes should it be decided, after due consultation, that changes should be made. In the event of them being made, regulations will be laid before the House.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: I made detailed representations yesterday to the Under-Secretary of State on behalf of the Police Federation. The hon. Gentleman has a copy of the papers prepared by the Federation on what it regards as an extremely important Amendment.
    I am anxious to secure on the Federation's behalf a categorical assurance that the policeman or policewoman will not be disadvantaged in any way by this Amendment. There is apprehension that the existing entitlements of policemen and policewomen may be abated to the value of the new benefits. It is even feared that it may be proposed to deny policemen and policewomen of the benefit of the modest new invalidity allowance. The invalidity allowance, if still in payment at the State retirement age, is to continue as a lifelong benefit. It is this factor especially which is of significance in considering the possibility of abatement.
    820
    I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to confirm that it is not his intention that there should be any abatement in consequence of the new benefits. I am sure that he would agree that policemen and policewomen and others affected by this Amendment are as much entitled to these benefits as any other section of the community.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), I am a little apprehensive about this Amendment. I know that in the past there has been a tendency, when general social security improvements have been made, to make corresponding abatements in certain types of public service pensions. As I read the Amendment, though its effect would not be to make such abatement mandatory, it might make it possible.
    I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that were anything of this sort to be done regulations would have to be laid, presumably by the Home Secretary. But when that happens, even if a prayer is tabled, subject to the negative procedure, I assume, sometimes the House is faced with the difficulty of having to annul regulations which are in themselves beneficial or allow to go through a provision within those regulations which is not helpful.
    12.30 a.m.
    Many of us would be disturbed if we denied to the police or the fire brigades additional benefits from the invalidity provisions such as are being given to other citizens. After all where other citizens are eligible for the invalidity provision there could clearly be no case for an abatement because of other sources of income. If the fact that someone drew his benefit as a former policeman or fireman meant that he would suffer and not get the same advantage of the very good invalidity provisions as the rest of the population, then this would not only be unfair but, particularly at this moment, it would be wrong.
    Even at this late hour, or perhaps particularly at this late hour, I would point out that the police on duty are being exposed to a greater degree than at any time in the past to the danger of serious personal injury. If there were to be any question of depriving them of extra benefit which other people are obtaining, then

    821
    my hon. Friend would find that criticism would not be confined to the other side of the House.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has raised this issue. I believe I am right in saying that this is the first time that the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has spoken as the newly-appointed adviser to the Police Federation—
    Mr. Alfred Morris Mr. Alfred Morris indicated assent.
    Dame Irene Ward: If so, I would like to congratulate him and hope that he has great success, particularly on this issue.
    I support everything said by my right hon. Friend. I have no fear at all but that the Under-Secretary and the Department of Health and Social Security will be only too anxious to protect the interests of the police and the fire service. I am not nearly so happy about the Home Office, which is the Department concerned.
    I may be out of order to refer to a battle which a great many of my hon. Friends are at present waging with the Home Office about certain things that we want put right. I understand that at the moment we are not winning our case because of Home Office objections and, therefore, I am not favourably inclined towards the Home Office. I like to win battles, and I am certain that in due course we shall win this one. I would be very apprehensive about any matter coming under the jurisdiction of the Home Office.
    Although I am not competent to comment on this matter, I hope that my hon. Friend will be very careful to protect the interests of the police and the fire service so far as his Department is concerned. Sometimes the best way to win a battle is to have one Department on one's side. I hope that everything that can be done for the police and fire service will be done.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: It is perhaps of significance that both sides of the House have shown considerable concern about this Amendment. Although I
    822
    agree that the Under-Secretary would be the last person to bring in any legislation that would discriminate against the police or the fire service, it is right that the House should be concerned about giving powers of this kind which can, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, sometimes pass below the horizon of the House's scrutiny in such a way that something becomes law which Parliament never really intended.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), who keeps a close and careful eye on police matters in the light of his new appointment—although it is fair to say he did so before—has raised an important point. The police service and the fire service are two particularly vulnerable services. The number of fires is continually increasing, as is the proportion of serious fires caused by chemical and other means. I am sure the whole House will not be averse to these two services, which are peculiarly in the eye of the storm, having a slight extra advantage. It is extremely important that firemen should go on responding to calls, and that policemen should be unarmed in all circumstances. If we ask them to undergo hazards in the public interest, it is right that we should perhaps more than generously compensate them.
    Mr. Dean: I naturally cannot prejudge the discussions which will take place on this matter. This will happen throughout the whole of the public service, but the paving Amendment is required for the police and the fire service, whereas it is not required for the other public services. I assure the whole House that the Home Secretary appreciates the special nature of the improvements for the long-term sick, and is satisfied that there is a good case for not abating the supplemental police and fire service pensions by the amount of the invalidity allowance or the corresponding increase of unemployability supplement under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    12.38 a.m.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: The Bill is very much a curate's egg from the point of view of the Opposition. In Committee we did not question that it contained some good things, but we made it clear that in many respects it did not go far enough and was unconvincing. We accept without reserve that the increase in the earnings of wives of invalidity pensioners and widows is entirely good, as is the increase in earnings allowed to retirement pensions, although it is fair to say that we were moving in the same direction. We say immediately that the introduction of the invalidity allowance and the replacement of sickness benefit by long-term invalidity benefit is good.
    It will be recognised by the House that in the areas where the Bill marks a move forward, that move forward is as yet inadequate. It was frequently indicated from both sides in Committee to the Under-Secretary of State—who readily accepted it—that the Bill marked at best the earliest stages in major reforms in social security which are not in dispute between the two sides.
    I accept that the Bill has taken a tentative step forward towards a disablement income. It is encouraging that the Under-Secretary said in Committee on 13th May that he believed that the disabled housewife should be one of the first group brought within any extension of the proposed invalidity allowance. He also indicated to the Committee that he believed there was a case for extending the better arrangements made for dependants to this group.
    We were glad that the hon. Gentleman said that in his view there should be an extension of the attendance allowance at an early stage to take in those who need constant daily care but do not satisfy the stringent conditions that apply to those who need constant day-and-night care.
    We were pleased that the hon. Gentleman indicated that broadly speaking it would be right to level up invalidity allowances as between people in different age groups. We were also pleased that he suggested that the argument for a higher dependants' allowance for children might shortly be applied more widely than to widows, to cover deserted wives and separated wives, about whom the Committee expressed considerable con-
    824
    cern. If the Government are in office that long, we shall look forward to the next stages of all these matters which were foreshadowed during the Committee stage.
    The hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) said he thought the Opposition had been involved in a purely political exercise on this Bill. I suggest that he cannot have seen that only two days ago the National Council of Labour, which represents trade unions, the Co-operative Movement and the Labour Party, issued a statement that it fully accepts its full share of responsibility for an annual increase in pensions involving, as it might well do, a further increase in contributions for its members. I would not wish the hon. Gentleman to think that we were engaged in playing politics. That would be unfair to old-age pensioners. It is fitting to put on record that the trade union section of the Labour Party has indicated its responsibilities in this matter.
    We are in no way moving away from our strong objections to a system that combines earnings-related contributions with flat-rate benefit. One of the most trenchant remarks on this matter was made on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), who is the most experienced Member in the House in this field, when he expressed grave doubts about a system which broke the link between contributions and the benefits associated with them. There is no doubt that this Bill does exactly that in a number of respects, one of which has now been put right by the deletion of Clause 7, which is concerned with the removal of the right to unemployment benefit for certain sections of the community. The Committee thought that this was taking principle too far and corrected this matter, with the considerable approval of a large number of "white collar" unions, professional groups and others.
    The central principle in the Bill which still remains, and which we reject, is the link between earnings-related contributions with a flat-rate contribution which is not inflation-proof. We have seen this happen under more than one Government. We in no way resile from our belief that the system must be made comparable and inflation-proof on both sides.

    825
    Lastly, we are not looking forward to hearing but expecting with a certain amount of grim anticipation what the Under-Secretary will say, no doubt after the Recess, about that extraordinary group of adopted children of the Conservative Party—the new policy for occupational pension schemes. I hope that not too many of those children will be too seriously handicapped. We shall want to make certain that those who are being asked to accept alternatives to the State scheme—albeit a State scheme which in our view has been seriously weakened in its central policies by the Bill—have at least as good conditions of preservation, as good conditions concerning their widows, and as good conditions concerning their possibility of transfer as exist in the State scheme. Anything less would be a deception on the public.
    12.46 a.m.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenfer: As King Henry VIII used to remark to his wives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall not keep you long. But this is too important a Bill, even at this late hour, to be given a perfunctory Third Reading. I observe, in parenthesis, that the fact that we are debating it as this hour is, as I made clear during Business questions yesterday, no wish of mine.
    This is a Bill of major importance. On the benefit side it does two important things. First, it provides for the biggest increases in money terms and the biggest additional expenditure since the National Insurance scheme was introduced. We can argue, we have argued, and no doubt we shall continue to argue about the amount, but it involves a massive transfer of purchasing power from the working generation to the retired generation; and I think we all welcome it as such.
    Secondly, it makes a start with developments in selective extra benefits, A good deal of nonsense is talked about selectivity in our social security system, but the kind of selectivity which the Bill embodies, and which I think is sensible, is selectivity by category. It provides extra benefit for two particular categories whose needs are beyond dispute: the chronic and long-term sick and the very old retirement pensioner. No one on either side of the House regards it as providing a
    826
    final solution to the needs of those categories, but, by breaking away from the previous pattern and by boldly making extra selective provision for these categories, the Bill makes an excellent start, on which I am sure my right hon. Friend will build further as the years pass. As such, I welcome it enormously.
    Like the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have less enthusiasm for the particular system devised for the contributions. I am not wholly happy, as I made clear on Second Reading—I will not weary the House by repeating what I said—about the use solely of graduated contributions for the purpose of financing a substantial increase in flat-rate benefits. This is an important matter not only for the Bill, which is about to leave us, but for my right hon. Friend's consideration of the major Measure which we shall presumably hear something about before the year is ended. I hope that my right hon. Friend will hesitate before going much further on this road.
    Having made that reservation, I go on to say that this in many ways a splendid Bill. It is a much better Bill, particularly in one respect, than it was when it was introduced. The hon. Lady referred to the late unlamented Clause 7. Most of us criticised that Clause on Second Reading as involving a serious breach of the principle that National Insurance benefits are paid as a right in return for contributions paid and without means test. That has been a basic principle of National Insurance since Beveridge. One acknowledges that my right hon. Friend still has certain of the practical problems to deal with, but I am profoundly glad that with the assistance of those hon. Members on both sides of the House who served on the Standing Committee, to whom we all ought to be grateful, that blot has been removed from the Bill.
    This is a splendid Bill. I hope that it will soon be on the way to the end of the corridor, and via another place to the Statute Book, where, however much we may argue about its details, it will do a considerable amount to give needed help and comfort to the largest section of our community which really needs it, and as such it will go with the blessing of both sides of the House.
    12.51 a.m.
    Mr. Jack Ashley: I should like to make a brief intervention to refer to some of the principles and provisions in the Bill, and to refer in particular to the invalidity pension and the constant attendance allowance.
    I think that perhaps the most significant words spoken throughout the debate on the Bill were those of the Under-Secretary of State when he said in Committee that the House should recognise how much was achieved in the Bill. That is fine. We should all recognise how much has been achieved in the Bill, provided that we recognise also that it achieves nothing that merits extravagant party political propaganda.
    There is a grave danger that hon. Gentlemen opposite will fall into the trap of trying to sell the provisions of the Bill in a rather extravagant way because in recent months every time disablement has been mentioned, inside or outside the House, a Government spokesman has stood up and boasted about the invalidity pension and the constant attendance allowance. It is a grave mistake to oversell the provisions of the Bill. They do not warrant the extravagant build-up that is constantly being given to them by Government spokesmen.
    By adopting that course, the Government are tempting my hon. Friends to look even more closely at these provisions. Instead of congratulating the Government, as we would all like to do, on this limited step forward, my hon. Friends are driven into making a close examination of the provisions, and when the Bill is carefully scrutinised, as it has been in Committee by my right hon. Friend and hon. Friends, it is seen as only a limited step forward.
    One of the demerits of the proposals for an invalidity pension is that, if anything, they tend to obscure rather than illustrate the predicament of the disabled housewife. It is a real pity that this section of the community, whom we all want to help, is not assisted. I know that in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) pressed this issue very strongly. But the Government were unable to accommodate them.
    828
    Because this is Third Reading, I cannot go into too much detail about something which is not in the Bill, but the disabled housewife is not provided for directly in the Bill, although indirectly there is some provision in the constant attendance allowance. The invalidity pension should highlight the predicament of the disabled housewife rather than obscure it. I hope that the point is taken by the Government, that the next step must be adequate provision for the disabled housewife.
    The other shortcoming of the invalidity pension is that it is in three parts. I do not think that it would be challenged by the Government that the third category, those receiving the 30p, is probably the largest category and that the incidence of disablement falls most heavily in this category. Although it is an advance, 30p is by no means a lavish endowment. This is a further reason for the House to recognise the limitations of these measures.
    The Bill increases the constant attendance allowance. The Government will insist that it be paid only to those people who require attendance day and night. This is a disgraceful and lamentable restriction on the disabled people who will receive this allowance. The number of people who will benefit under this unjustified limitation is a meagre 25,000, whereas, if the day and night provision were to be removed and all those severely disabled who require constant attendance during the day were included, 150,000 people would receive the allowance. I hope that the Government will bear in mind after the Bill is passed that the widening of the scope of constant attendance is a vital necessity in order to provide for the severely disabled who are so badly in need.
    I apologise for taking so much time at this late hour, but I am anxious that we should recognise what has been done by the Government in this Bill. This limited step forward is welcome. At the risk of repeating myself, I would say that the provisions are not only modest but meagre and should be recognised as such. So, while giving these provisions a warm welcome, we must be realistic and recognise that this small step forward must be a springboard on which we must build for the future.

    829
    I would conclude with a further quotation from the Under-Secretary, who also spoke in Committee. He said that this Bill is only a beginning. I would end on that note, by expressing the hope that that beginning will be added to in future Bills.
    1.0 a.m.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on having brought forward what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) described as a splendid Bill. It is undoubtedly the most important piece of legislation to have been introduced on the whole question of the relationship between the individual and the community since my right hon. Friend's great Measure of 1959.
    My right hon. Friend's Measure introduced the concept of earnings-related benefits, while this Bill introduces earnings-related contributions. The House knows that I welcome this particularly, as the first step towards a comprehensive reform of the relationship between the individual and the State which I recommend. However, I realise that my right hon. Friend regrets this change because it says goodbye to the finely calculated mathematical basis of the National Insurance Scheme. I am convinced, nevertheless, that we must indeed say goodbye to that basis, rather in the way that we had to say goodbye to Newton's physics and move on to a more complex system.
    I suggest that the hon Lady the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) went too far in her opposition to the concept of earnings-related contributions and flat-rate benefits. I hope that on another occasion she will give a fuller explanation of her views of the nature of the obligation to contribute and the nature of the entitlement to benefit, particularly as the changes proposed in the Bill are in line with the thinking of many of her hon. Friends and other students of national insurance.
    Two main problems have been raised in the deliberations on the Bill, and my hon. Friend will no doubt be considering them. One is the whole question of the treatment of the disabled. I support the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) in his call for the Government to consider a disability pension.
    830
    The problem which remains as a result of the Amendments accepted tonight and our discussion in Committee is that of the age of retirement. Although women normally live longer than men, they retire, under the National Insurance Scheme, at 60, while men retire at 65. I have expressed my view on this subject sufficiently in the past not to have to repeat the arguments now. It is a remaining problem in National Insurance that the span of working life of every individual is a personal matter for himself and it is not possible to lay down a rule that retirement should happen at a certain age without resulting in a degree of inhumanity.
    The Prudential Assurance Company has recently announced an optional scheme for retirement for its staff at the age of 50. This is an important and progressive step forward by a company which has as great a knowledge of the whole sphere of retirement as any company in the world. If this is what is being done in the private sector, it cannot be long before there will be pressure for the State scheme to become more flexible over the age of retirement.
    It is possible for a private company to modify its rate of benefit, and under the new Prudential scheme a person who retires at 50 will qualify for half pay. It would be difficult to justify introducing a concept of half-pay in the National Insurance Scheme, particularly when the majority of hon. Members agree that the present full pensions are not enough. However, I hope that the Government, and particularly the Department of Employment, will bear this matter in mind, for it is a subject which is bound to be raised in the remaining years of this Parliament.
    1.5 a.m.
    Mr. Pavitt: Each contribution to this debate has, while expressing thanks for the provisions of the Bill, regarded this as a first instalment—as a sort of payment on account for a number of steps that the Government will shortly be taking in this sphere.
    I begin by emphasising the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) about the need for adequate disability income, and I am sure that when the Secretary of

    831
    State meets representatives of the Disablement Income Group at Church House next Wednesday many of the arguments which have been adduced tonight will be repeated to him with equal clarity.
    I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Kensington, South (Sir B. Rhys Williams) because the House recognises that he is an expert on these matters and he does his homework. That was useful to both sides of the Committee, and when the hon. Gentleman spoke he invariably made a meaty contribution. It was a good Committee and I pay tribute to the Members who served on it.
    The Under-Secretary was extremely good in piloting the Bill. He was very kind and gentle. One of the most amazing aspects of his political prowess was that he gave us absolutely nothing on the Bill at any time. He was polite and kind, but on each of the Amendments he was able to give precisely nothing at the end of the day.
    Therefore, it is a great tribute to the Conservative Party—it is about the only one I could pay over the last 12 months—that on Clause 7 a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite could see what was wrong with it and had the courage to do something about it. They were not being awkward with the Under-Secretary. There is no glory or laurel to be obtained by being the martyr of one's party. I have rebelled against my party. No one glories in it or likes it. But there are times when the arguments presented are such that, although one does not vote against one's Government, the only thing to do is to abstain. Therefore, I congratulate those hon. Gentlemen opposite not only for the fact that we got rid of Clause 7 but for the way in which they did it. It was not awkward, unkind or unfair to the Under-Secretary, who nevertheless did not break. If all politics was done in this way, it would be a much easier House.
    Finally, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams). For many of us this is a difficult, complex and complicated subject, and one with many intricacies. Many of us have to do our homework twice to be au fait with what is being said. My hon. Friend took not just the
    832
    brunt of the arguments but often most of them.
    A number of the Clauses followed in many ways the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythen-shawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) was able to get through the House in the last Session—the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act—and we found ourselves leaning on his expertise.
    We owe a great debt to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin. It was one of the most pleasing Committees on which I have sat, having been one of the full-time member*. Not being a lawyer or a company director, for the last 12 years I have sat on most of the morning Committees. It was pleasing for the way in which it worked. I pay tribute to its Chairman, the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings).
    1.10 a.m.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: It falls to me to say the final word from the Opposition benches. While it is eminently proper that we should have a Third Reading debate, I shall be very brief.
    I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) a deep admiration for the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has led for the Opposition throughout the proceedings on the Bill. Both on the Floor of the House and in Committee, our proceedings have been extremely good tempered. The Committee stage was constructive, but we affected too few changes in the Bill. Nevertheless, we on this side are indebted to the courage of hon. Members opposite for the Amendments that were secured in Committee.
    The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has said again that the Bill represents a major redistribution of wealth from those at work to those who are retired. I profoundly disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Improvements in pensions fall well behind improvements in industrial earnings. This means that in relative terms those who depend on the retirement pension are increasingly worse off. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect more on the meaning of this for the millions of elderly people who have to depend on the retirement pension.

    833
    The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) said that the House is not divided about its aims. The main difference between the two sides is that we on this side have made proposals and have a policy for improving the relative standard of living of all retirement pensioners and others in special need. The Tories did not know whether to support or oppose that policy. The country wants to know the Government's long-term policy for improving the standard of living of elderly people in relative terms. That is the major difference between the parties.
    There is now a strong case for compiling a special cost of living index for pensions. We have argued recently that there should be an annual review of pensions. Together with that, a special weighting should be given, in view of the demonstrable fact that elderly people must spend much more of their income on essentials, particularly on food. Far too many elderly people live on an economic razor edge. All of us could do with showing much more concern for the undoubted suffering among many elderly people.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) that we must take a realistic view of the proposals in the Bill which will benefit the severely disabled. I know that the Minister accepts that far too few severely disabled people will benefit from the constant attendance allowance. This is true also of the invalidity allowance. The great majority of severely disabled people will not receive either the constant attendance allowance or the invalidity allowance. The hon. Gentleman appreciates that we on this side feel strongly that the invalidity allowance should have been of a uniform amount. The incidence of severe disablement increases with age, yet entitlement to the invalidity allowance decreases with age.
    I accept that the introduction of the invalidity allowance is a very important beginning. The Under-Secretary has shown himself responsive to arguments which have been put to him in debates on these provisions. He is well respected by the Disablement Income Group and by other organisations working to help those who are severely disabled. The hon. Gentleman will have help from those of us on this side who take a special interest
    834
    in the problems of severely disabled people if he pushes along the road towards a completely new financial deal for the disabled. As I said in Committee, we need a completely new strategy for disablement income. There is now insistent pressure from outside Parliament, not least from the Disablement Income Group, for new thinking in this sphere. We have had further hard-fought campaigns in the statistics war. Naturally, it is my prejudice to believe we had the best of the argument. Nevertheless we must all accept that the bandying of statistics is no longer enough. It is expected of us by the country as a whole that we lift the status of the severely disabled.
    I hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to encourage us to think that the Bill is only a beginning and that we can expect further major improvements in the years ahead.
    1.16 a.m.
    Mr. Alec Jones: I had not originally intended to take part in this debate, but when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) state that he was going to have the last word from this side on this important Bill, with my hostility to Front Benches in general and Government Front Benches in particular, I decided that I could not allow him to get away with that. Certainly I welcome all the improvements this Bill, particularly the normal improvements to sickness and unemployment benefit and things of that sort. Unemployment benefit becomes more and more important as the year goes by, and by this time next year we shall probably have created a record in the number of people receiving it. Similarly I welcome all the innovations, particularly the invalidity pension. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, I feel that could not justify supporting the age of onset concept. It seemed to me to suggest that the older one was while receiving an invalidity pension the less one would receive to meet the specific needs caused by the disability.
    It would be churlish of me not to thank the Minister and the Government for the contents of Clause 8. It certainly gave me an opportunity of moving an Amendment which otherwise I might not have had and it also enabled the Minister to indicate his sympathy towards the sort

    835
    of problem mentioned. I suppose most of us regard this Bill as Oliver Twist regarded some of the food he was given: we welcome it but we would like a lot more.
    1.18 a.m.
    Mr. Ernie Money: Would the Minister consider one further class of disabled person not so far mentioned during the deliberations on the Bill?
    A great deal has been rightly said about the steps the Bill takes, by the constant attendance allowance, towards looking after the position of the severely disabled. But the partially disabled who have to depend upon the services given to them by their neighbours as an act of charity are in a particularly invideous position. The inclusion of a small sum which would enable them to pay for those services—perhaps helping them to dress, and so on—could make all the difference between their being able to accept such services instead of feeling that they could not accept them as acts of charity.
    I hope that, as we come to look more closely at the position of disabled people, we shall find it possible to include some form of attendance allowance as of right for that purpose.
    1.20 a.m.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): There have been some reservations, which I understand, but I am grateful for the general welcome to the Bill from both sides of the House, and I am grateful, also, for the extremely helpful debates which we have had both here and in Committee. Although there have been differences of view on some matters, there is a real bipartisan approach to some important aspects of the Bill, notably the provisions regarding chronic sickness and disability. The contributions from hon. Members on both sides will be of real value to us in planning our future policy.
    I reiterate, as I have been asked to do, that we regard this step in disability legislation as no more than a first step, and it will be followed by further measures.
    836
    I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of our local social security offices—
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Dean: —on whose hard work we invariably rely each time we decide to improve benefits. This year, they have the huge task of dealing with the improvements in pensions and allowances as well as an exceptional volume of extra work in conditions of unprecedented difficulty caused by the postal strike and the process of clearing up after it. In addition, the staff are coping well with the welcome spate of new claims resulting from the take-up campaign, the new pensions for the over-80s, the family income supplement and the attendance allowance for the severely disabled.
    It is all the more regrettable that from time to time they should have to endure ill-informed and unjustified criticism of the way in which they discharge their complex and often delicate duties.
    The Bill will benefit about 10½ million people, to the extent of £570 million. It provides for the biggest increase ever in cash terms in the rate of benefits. I say that in no spirit of boasting, because the Government realise that price rises hit pensioners hardest and they have for that reason responded with this biggest-ever increase which will more than restore the value of the pensions and other benefits.
    I am glad, also, that a welcome has been given to the selective increases over and above that. We regard this as a key feature which marks out the pattern for the future—additional help for special groups so that priority needs can be met by priority action. I have in mind here, in particular, help for the very elderly, those aged 80 and over, and the provision which we make in respect of chronic sickness and disability.
    The Bill marks the climax of the Government's first year's work for pensioners and those in need. I hope that the House will feel as we do, that it combines compassion, realism and prompt action.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

SOCIAL SECURITY (SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS)
1.25 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I beg to move,
That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.
The Regulations seek to implement the proposed changes in supplementary benefit. The changes include both a general increase in supplementary benefits, in line with the National Insurance increases, and further selective improvements in the rates for young people and the very elderly. They also introduce a new requirement into the supplementary benefit scheme—attendance requirements to match the attendance allowance in the National Insurance Scheme.
Regulation 2(2) is the main Regulation dealing with the increase for the single householder and the married couple. The proposed increase for a single householder is 60p, taking the rate up to £5·80 a week. The married couple rate is to go up by 95p to £9·45 a week. When the November, 1970, supplementary benefit increases are taken into account, these rates will have increased by about 20 per cent. over the November, 1969, level, thus staying in fine with National Insurance benefit rates. Thus the total cash increase for a single householder over November, 1969, is £l-40p last November and 60p this September—which is the same as the increase in the standard rate of National Insurance benefit for a single person.
Other supplementary benefit rates are to go up by a similar proportion, except that the rates for which a selective additional increase is proposed will be higher by a higher percentage.
These increases will benefit about 2·9 million people and their dependants, of whom about 2·3 million are supplementary pensioners.
Regulation 2(4) deals with rent additions for non-householders. Unless the House wishes me to say more, perhaps I can just make that brief passing reference.
Now I should like to say something about the selective improvements. Over
838
and above the general increase, two additional improvements are proposed in the supplementary benefit scheme. These will affect the scale rates for young people aged from 13 to 20 and the long-term addition when it is paid to householders where the pensioner or his wife is over 80.
The new scale rates proposed for the 13–15, 16–17 and 18–20 age groups include selective improvements which have the support of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. The amounts that represent an improvement—that is, the sums over and above a strictly proportionate increase—are 35p for the 13–15 age group, 25p for those aged 16–17, and 20p for those aged 18–20. Both those over 16 claiming benefit in their own right and those who are the dependants of claimants will benefit. The latter are mainly children aged 13–15, but also those over 16 and under 21 who are still in full-time education. This improvement will narrow the present gaps between the rates for adults and those for older children, and will provide additional help for parents on supplementary benefit who have children in those age groups.
This proposed change in the relativities for these age groups corresponds to the common-sense view that their requirements are relatively greater than the present arrangements admit. It is a change which has been suggested from time to time by various people and organisations.
The long-term addition of 50p is paid to everyone over pension age and to all those under pension age, except the unemployed, who have received supplementary benefit continuously for two years or more. It replaces the small additions to benefit under national assistance for those who are most likely to have special needs, though further special additions may also be made if the long-term addition does not meet the cost of a person's exceptional needs. It is a household benefit in the sense that the same rate applies to single people and married couples.
It is proposed to increase the long-term addition by 25p when either the pensioner or someone dependent on him is aged 80 or over. This will provide some additional benefit for those among the oldest supplementary pensioners,

839
mostly widows and single women, whose special needs are not already being met by additions to benefit over and above the long-term addition.
Regulation 4 deals with the attendance allowance, which is to be paid at the rate of £4·80 a week from December. It is intended specifically for very severely disabled people who for six months have satisfied a medical requirement that they need either a lot of attention, both day and night, or continual supervision. The allowance therefore caters for a well-defined category of people and is based upon a recognisable and specific need which they all share at the same level. In these circumstances, the Government considered it right to provide for the same common level of requirements in the Supplementary Benefit Scheme, and this is what Regulation 3 achieves. It will be seen that the new requirements level applies to both adults and children.
The estimated cost of the proposed increases in themselves is, for a full year, just under £116 million. This includes £53·4 million for the increase in the scale rate for the single householder and £30·9 million for the increase in the married couple scale rate. The selective improvements will cost altogether £7·05 million, of which £4·3 million is accounted for by the enhanced long-term addition and £2·75 million by the improved rates for the 13 to 20 age groups.
The purpose of the Regulations is to increase substantially the minimum income guaranteed by Parliament to those who are unable to support themselves and to give some additional help where it is most needed. Our proposals reflect the view, which all of us share, that supplementary benefit should remain a last resort, while at the same time it must at least maintain the standard of living of the neediest people in this country who rely upon it. In addition, as I have said, we have been able to make some modest but real improvements. We have decided to concentrate them on this occasion on the very elderly and on young people in preference to other improvements—such as increasing the disregards in the supplementary benefit scheme—which would benefit people who are already enjoying a standard of Jiving above the basic
840
supplementary benefit level. The increases will help nearly 3 million people and their dependants.
I commend the Regulations to the House.
1.33 a.m.
Mr. Brian O'Malley: We welcome the increases in supplementary benefit and the increase in the attendance allowance from the proposed £4 to the new figure of £4.80. Regulation 3, which deals with the attendance allowance, comes into effect on 6th December, 1971, while the earlier provisions, which dealt with the normal supplementary benefit scale rates and the scale rates applying to blind people, come into operation on 20th September, 1971.
The supplementary scale rates were last increased in November, 1970. The fact that these supplementary benefit increases or upratings are to come into operation in September amounts to a confession of the Government's failure to contain and control prices. The statement made before the election that prices would be brought down at a stroke was a joke—although we would say a bad joke—and the Government have had little choice but to bring forward the increases in the supplementary benefit scale rates by a couple of months.
The scale rates for married couples, which do not include the rent allowance, go up from £8.50 to £9.45, which represents an increase of 11.2 per cent. The increase for the single householder is about the same—11.5 per cent.
Before approving these Regulations, we should note that in the five months between November, 1970, when the supplementary benefit rates were last increased, up to April, 1971, the last month for which we have figures, there has been an increase in retail food prices of 7.9 per cent. Even taking into account the fact that there is not in many years an increase in summer months comparable with that in the winter months it would not be unreasonable to assume that by the time the present rates come to an end we will probably have increases in prices of 16 per cent. or 20 per cent.
If the Under-Secretary thinks that my figures are wrong, and I put them forward in an exploratory way, although reasonable projections seem to show that this

841
kind of movement is not unlikely, it would be of benefit to have the Government's assessments of the likely movements of prices. I know that the hon. Gentleman will have these because when he was in opposition he asked the then Minister, Mr. David Ennals, for such assessments.
If we look at the increase of 11.2 per cent. for the married couple and then at the price increases we can see the difficulties. Incidentally, the rate of increase in food prices in the first 12 months of Tory Government has been about double the rate of increase in the last 12 months of Labour Government.
Secondly, basic wage rates have been rising by about 0·8 per cent. a month between November, 1970, and September, 1971. If we project these figures it would mean that even before the increases take effect there will have been a movement in basic wage rates of about 72 per cent. What is likely to happen to basic wages rates in the years during which these scale rates are in operation? In these conditions of chronic inflation with which the Government seem to be incapable of dealing we are bound to approach the increases with a certain amount of reservation. In a population which is conscious of price increases— as can be seen from the election result at Hayes and Harlington which has just come in—people receiving supplementary benefit increases will quickly realise that their benefits have been eroded.
It must be recognised that even the level stated in the Regulations represents a sparse standard of living. Perhaps it will always be the case that people receiving supplementary benefit are likely never to have much more than a sparse standard of living compared with the rest of the population simply because of the large numbers on supplementary benefit. If we could reach the position where the supplementary benefit system became a safety net rather than a system which has to deal with such large numbers, including large numbers of retirement pensioners, it would be much easier for a government to meet the problem. What is disturbing in the long-term implications of the scale rate set out in the Instrument is that the Government are not cutting down on the number of people receiving means-tested benefits by the introduction of other schemes but, on the contrary, increasing the number.
842
As the Minister pointed out, there has been a bigger percentage increase in non-householder rates for people between 16 and 17 and between 18 and 20. We think this is right. Does the Minister believe that in the long term we should maintain, as we are maintaining here in respect of the more than proportionate increases given to the categories I have mentioned, a difference in entitlement between people of 18, 19 and 20 and those of 21 and over? The age of majority is now 18 rather than 21, and it could plausibly be argued that the needs of the 19-year old are not much, if at all, different from the needs of the 21-year old. It may be that we should close up this band now, particularly in respect of young mothers.
The long-term addition, with the exception of people who are over 80, or who have dependent relatives over 80, remains at 50p. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that additional payments could be made, but I should have thought an upward movement of the long-term addition would help administratively, as well as helping a large number of people, including retirement pensioners, who are dependent on the long-term addition.
No rent allowance is included in the 65p for recipients under 18. Will the hon. Gentleman consider whether, for example, a young mother under that age, a non-householder, should get a rent allowance, or a young person not living with parents but with a married brother or sister?
The attendance allowance, the £4–80, is to be disregarded and is on top of the ordinary supplementary benefit scale rates. Why not do the same for invalidity allowances, so that all people who are entitled to an attendance allowance or an invalidity allowance would get an addition to the scale rate after six months?
Lastly, will the Minister explain Regulation 3(4)?
Mr. Dean: With the leave of the House, I will deal with the questions put to me by the hon. Gentleman. He asked, first, how much I thought prices would increase. I think he knows my answer, which is that I do not intend to speculate on this, but assure him that the Government are doing their utmost to moderate

843
the increases in prices, and we are sure that we shall be successful.
The hon. Gentleman asked me to comment on the improvements in the rates for older children and to say whether I felt there was room for further improvement. The changes we have made are in response to modern needs, and we shall continue to watch closely, as will the commission, to see that we match the needs as readily as we can. A young mother over 16 would be entitled to an allowance in her own right, and, of course, an allowance for her children as well.
Mr. O'Malley: Would a young mother who was a non-householder be entitled to the 65p rent allowance?
Mr. Dean: I am not certain. Rather than give an incorrect answer off the cuff, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to check on that and let him know.
The hon. Gentleman asked me why the invalidity allowance was not included in the Regulations. This is largely for the reasons which I gave on the National Insurance Bill which we have just completed. We feel that the present arrangements in the supplementary benefits scheme reflect individual needs not only through the long-term addition but through the special allowances over and above that.
There is a marginal number of people in the chronically sick and disabled category who are receiving these additional allowances. This is not our last word on this. The whole matter of disability is being considered and the Supplementary Benefits Commission has this matter very much in mind and is shortly to review the operation of discretionary additions to benefits and long term conditions. We are also considering mounting a research study on people of working age who are subject to long term absence from work on account of sickness or disability. The basic objectives of the study now being formulated are expected to include knowledge of the extent to which the handicapped eligible for supplementary benefit are getting it; and, secondly, any reliable pointers as to the adequacy of supplementary benefit for such persons and the direction any improvements might take. I hope that
844
assures the hon. Gentleman we have this point very much in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on 17th May, be approved.

SKELMERSDALE (EMPLOYMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
1.47 a.m.
Mr. Michael McGuire: This is an important subject concerning the problems of unemployment in Skelmersdale new town, which I am happy to have the opportunity to raise, albeit at this late, or early, hour in the morning. Before turning to the main matters with which I wish to deal, perhaps I ought to say something about the background and history of the new town.
Skelmersdale new town was designated by the Tory Government in 1961 and the development corporation was established early in 1962. The officers and the chief officials were chosen in July of that year. The total acreage of the new town is just over 4,000. The new town was designed to relieve the tremendous social and economic problems of Liverpool. People from North Mersey-side have been encouraged and recruited to come to Skelmersdale new town. The town was grafted on to an old mining town, the Skelmersdale urban district, and a town with strong mining connections; namely, the urban district of Up-holland. These two towns have since 1968 been amalgamated into the Urban District of Skelmersdale and Upholland, and I am pleased to say that following the last elections the Labour Party is in control of the new town.
The population was at one time just over 10,000; its present population is about 30,000, and the new town element of that is about 20,000 and is growing rapidly. There are about 50 firms in the area employing about 7,000 people.
I have had difficulty in finding the exact figure of unemployment in the Skelmersdale new town area. Skelmersdale is linked for D.E.P. administrative

845
purposes with Ormskirk to form the Ormskirk and Skelmersdale travel-to-work area. The figure for unemployment of this combined area in May, 1971, was 4·8 per cent. However, this hides the true figure in the Skelmersdale area, which I calculate at about 6·3 per cent., but which some people say is higher and should be 8 per cent.
I calculate this figure by taking the insured working population figure, which I believe is the basis for calculating unemployment figures, of 8,156 in 1969. I have added to that an assumed increase in the working population of about 900 a year. Rounding off the figure for the insured working population in Skelmersdale, I reach 10,000. Dividing that by the unemployed figure of 627, one gets a figure of 6·3 per cent. However, because that does not include many hundreds of women who do not pay the full insurance stamp, those who claim that the figure is nearer 8 per cent. have good grounds for so claiming.
What about jobs in the pipeline? I believe, from the calculations which I have made and the discussions I have had with responsible people, that the jobs in the pipeline will not satisfy the needs of those who are already unemployed and those who are every week being encouraged to come into the town.
The greatest tragedy is that, probably for the first time in the new town's history, there will be almost a full complement of school leavers this summer. I understand that there will be about 220 to 240 school leavers coming on the town's labour market this year. There are very few jobs for them. It is estimated that only about 40 will be employed within the new town.
A lot of shift work is done in Skelmersdale, and, because of the restrictions concerning the employment of young people under 18 on shift work, there will be little opportunity for them to go into many of these jobs.
I realise that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Under-Secretary, hearing me speak of a figure of 6·3 per cent. or even 8 per cent., will wonder why I am making a din about what to him is probably a puny figure compared with his native province. My point is that this is an artificially created town, which everybody wants to succeed, and it has
846
now got an artificially enlarged schools population because we have encouraged young families to go there. In other words, the Government are creating the problem and only by positive action can they help. Nobody expects the Government to wave a magic wand which will cure all the problems not only for Skelmersdale but for the nation. However, I think that there are two or three positive things which they can do.
Recently, because of closures of firms which were seemingly well established we have lost about 550 jobs. The people there know that there has been a cut back in the expansion programmes of some firms, and they need a morale booster. One way of providing that boost is by the Secretary of State for Social Services announcing publicly the acceptance of the recommendation of the Liverpool Hospital Board that Skelmersdale new town is the best place in that area for a new hospital. That has not been announced officially, and I should like it to be because it would be a morale booster for the town. I have corresponded with the Minister on this subject, and I have asked Questions about it, and I hope that that will be done.
Second, the Government Department which is investigating the dispersal of Government officers, and the Minister responsible, should announce that because of the special problems of Skelmersdale a new Government Department will be established there. That would be the second morale booster. There is a desperate shortage of skilled employed in the area. There is very little outlet on the skilled clerical side, which now includes the use of computers, and so on, and if such an outlet were established there, people would be encouraged to invest in the new town.
The Government should make a serious study of why there is this lack of skilled employment in the area. The sad thing about one of the cut-backs in Skelmersdale is that the only big engineering firm, Dewrance, is not going ahead with its expansion programme. It has had to make a cut back, and although the number of people involved is not large, I regard the position as serious.
The people of Skelmersdale have become a bit demoralised because they have seen the loss of jobs in what were established firms. They also received a

847
severe blow when Pilkington decided not to invest there. The decision by Pilkington to go to Skelmersdale was all but signed, but not sealed and delivered, and the firm has now moved to Wrexham. That is a blow from which the new town will reel for many a day.
I read the other day that the new process invented by Pilkington, which will be more profitable than float glass, would be used for manufacture at Wrexham. When one considers the fantastic success which the new process will have, one realises what a blow the decision to set up the plant in Wrexham has been to Skelmersdale.
That gives me the opportunity to rebut what is said to be one of the reasons why Pilkington did not move into the new town. It was suggested that there might be labour relations trouble if the firm went there. It was said that because 80 per cent. of our labour force comes from North Merseyside, inevitably there would be tremendous industrial relations problems. The fact is—and I have checked this with industrialists and with the new town corporation—that the labour relations record in Skelmersdale is excellent, so much so that one of the firms that went out of business, Genyk, told the development corporation that its failure was in no way due to trouble with the people it employed. It could not give them enough praise. It said that the people had done everything possible to sustain it. This is the verdict of many other people, who come into the new town a little apprehensively but after a while realise that they have nothing to fear. So I am pleased to be able to make this complete rebuttal.
This change in attitude of the Liverpool people is not because they have become any less militant but because a change of environment, with modern factories and houses, better conditions, better opportunities and brighter prospects, seemingly at any rate, for their children percolates through to the personality of the worker, and he does not have the same reasons to rebel, except against his employers, for good cause. This must have contributed towards a very good result, that the Liverpool worker in Skelmersdale is as responsible as the good worker anywhere else.
848
I hope that I have not painted too black a picture; that was certainly not my intention. One can be indicted in these circumstances for raising a scare and frightening people off. The problems are too great, and the greatest danger would have been to say nothing. I believe that people came from North Merseyside encouraged by the Tory Government of 1961–64 and the Labour Government of 1964–70, and still encouraged—rightly, I believe—by this Government.
We have a responsibility to them. They came expecting better prospects for themselves and their children. By doing some of the simplest things that I have mentioned, the Government can ensure that better, richer life to which they look forward and which they have a right to expect. That is why I have been delighted to raise this subject tonight.
2.2 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I am sure that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. McGuire) has done a service to his constituents by raising this matter tonight. I thought he did it in a measured and moderate fashion, without exaggeration or painting too black a picture. I was glad to hear him acknowledge the importance of not talking down an area in an attempt to talk it up. We would all feel that Skelmersdale has made a great start in life, has great promise for the future and has been one of the most successful new towns, and that his tributes to the town and the people who live there were quite right.
Nevertheless, there has been a setback in employment. The hon. Members figures were right. The figure for the Ormskirk travel-to-work area is now 4·8 per cent.—6·2 per cent. for males only—but this represents a slight drop from last month. We should take what encouragement we can from that. This is against a national percentage in the same month of 3·3 per cent. and a percentage for the North-West region of 3·7 per cent. and a percentage for the Merseyside development area of 5T per cent.
These figures are above the national average, but, as the hon. Member fairly acknowledged, they are nothing like as high as in some parts of the country. I entirely accept that the fact that some people are unemployed is a hardship on

849
those people, and whether the number is large or small, it is still a hardship. But one has to keep this matter in perspective. The 600-odd people whom he quoted as being unemployed in the new town itself are quite a small number compared to the massive problems in some other parts of the country.
I should explain why we use the travel to work area, in this case the Ormskirk area. It is not to mask the figures in any part of the area. It is simply that it is the area over which people travel to work, and the natural flow of people from homes to employment is obviously the unit which must be taken if we are to make sensible decisions about regional policy.
It would be possible to isolate tiny pockets with very high unemployment, but I do not believe that it is meaningful to try to cure a problem of this kind on the basis of small areas, and for this reason the Department is right to employ the travel to work area basis. However, I emphasise that this is in no sense done with the idea of masking the problem, of which we are aware.
Mr. McGuire: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the need to obtain figures in a systematic way, but in a situation like this, when Ormskirk's figure is 3 per cent. and Skelmersdale's is between 6 per cent. and 8 per cent., is it not possible to concentrate the solution of the problem on Skelmersdale instead of spreading the help over the whole area too thinly?
Mr. Ridley: I do not think one can divide the country into tiny areas and make some development areas and others not in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. One must take areas of a reasonable size, and it is not practicable to divide areas into smaller portions because one portion has a figure of 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. higher than another.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, there have been two closures in Skelmersdale, the Genyk Company and the British East Light Company. These have caused the loss of several hundred jobs. If those closure had not taken place, it might have been argued that Ormskirk was in a worse position than Skelmersdale. One cannot change the development area
850
status of areas from week to week, as would be implied from what he suggested.
These two closures have given added point to the problem and show how important it is not only to get new factories to an area but to ensure that the businesses are viable and can survive chill economic winds when they blow, as they have been blowing for the last year and more. The Government were, therefore, absolutely right to concentrate their aid on firms that were likely to be viable and able to withstand economic blizzards, rather than firms which might not be able to survive these difficulties.
One must remember that wage inflation is still causing havoc—
Mr. McGuiren: Not in my constituency.
Mr. Ridley: —and it is still possible that firms will be priced out of the market, and more closures will result.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Pilkington factory. I appreciate that it would have been a great asset to his area, but, equally, it is a great asset to the area where it has gone. This, of course, introduces the concept of competition between development areas, which are all needing employment, to offer facilities and a record of good industrial relations and co-operation to attract plum businesses.
I was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the record of strikes and industrial relations is so good in Skelmersdale, and I am sure that that will help to attract new industries and businesses. The town has great opportunities. It has all the development area incentives in an area which is not getting assistance because it is not itself a development area. It not merely has the incentives which give it 40 per cent. of the initial tax allowance on buildings and a 45 per cent. building grant. It receives loans under the Local Employment Acts, and the new training initiative announced by my right hon. Friend will apply in Skelmersdale. Investment grants have been replaced by free depreciation on plant and machinery, which will be a great help to industrialists moving into the area. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman on the question of the hospital, but I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to his remarks and I hope that he will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the good news which he seeks, though I have no

851
knowledge of what is the answer to the siting of that hospital.
I will also draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary responsible for Civil Service matters to the question of whether there will be a possibility of a Government Department being sited in Skelmersdale, though there is a much greater number of candidates for Government offices than the number of Government offices, especially mobile ones, and the chances are never as encouraging as the areas would like.
Another great asset of Skelmersdale is its closeness to the motorway and good communications with Liverpool. It has many other amenities. It is a nice, bright, new town, and the New Town Corporation has achieved a great deal in the 10 years which it has been at work. The population has grown from 10,000 in 1962 to about 30,000 at present. In that brief space of time the Corporation has provided nearly 7,000 new jobs, over 4,000 of which are for males. This comprises 59 new firms in 80 factory units, and there are four new factories available for renting and seven under construction. That is a record of very rapid growth and increase in job opportunities. I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that the jobs in prospect seem to be equally hopeful.
In the period January, 1969, to January, 1971, 31 industrial development certificates were granted for the travel-to-work area and they produced 2,580 jobs. At present—this is a separate figure—there are between 2,000 and 3,000 jobs in prospect, mostly for men, over the next three or four years. This figure does not include jobs in service industries and expansions in existing firms, about which my Department has no knowledge.
Over 5,000 houses have been completed and more than 1,000 are now under construction, so no one can deny that the town is thriving and expanding and has great potential for future industrial development. The town will be much sought after by industrialists.
852
The hon. Gentleman called for better plans of employment. The matter has arisen in the past because many unskilled or semi-skilled people came from Liverpool to settle in the town. In a sense, one could say that it is very fortunate that so many jobs have been provided for unskilled men. In many areas the employment problem is among the unskilled when there is often at the same time a shortage of skilled people. It is again a plus point for the new town that it has managed to employ so many people without skills. But I accept that it would be a good thing if more skilled jobs could be introduced. If there were a computer centre, a Government office or more service industries this would help the balance in the town. I am sure that the Development Corporation will do its best in that area, as will my Department, in bringing the site to the attention of any potential developer. The halving of S.E.T. and its eventual abolition will make this more attractive. There are great opportunities there of which I hope firms will take account. School-leavers will be coming on to the labour market, and this will help rather than hinder. Industrialists and businessmen tend to settle where they consider that there is the right quality and quantity of labour for their businesses.
The development of the town should be capably and successfully continued by the Corporation. The town has a great future. It is in a difficult patch lately. One might call this a hiccup in its growth. Everyone wants to see it assuming its potential development in employment.
In the House tonight the hon. Gentleman has done a service to the town in drawing its attractions to the public's attention. I am sure that his efforts will be rewarded in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Two o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Personnel Files (Security)
  Personnel Files (Security)
  Victoria Cross
  Victoria Cross
  United States Forces, Europe
  United States Forces, Europe
  Long Service and Widows' Pensions
  Long Service and Widows' Pensions
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Gulf
  Gulf
  Brunei
  Brunei
  Army Commissions
  Army Commissions
  Harrier Aircraft (Ship Trials)
  Harrier Aircraft (Ship Trials)
  Embarked Aircraft (Operation)
  Embarked Aircraft (Operation)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Legal Aid (Northern Region)
  Legal Aid (Northern Region)
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Foreign Servicemen
  Foreign Servicemen
  Speed Boats
  Speed Boats
  Commonwealth Students
  Commonwealth Students
  Mini-cabs
  Mini-cabs
  Serious Crime (Penalties)
  Serious Crime (Penalties)
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Employment Service
  Youth Employment Service
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Code of Industral Relations Practice (Consultative Document)
  Code of Industral Relations Practice (Consultative Document)
  Executives (Pay)
  Executives (Pay)
  Prices and Incomes
  Prices and Incomes
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Vietnam (Police Officers' Visit)
  Vietnam (Police Officers' Visit)
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  Iceland (Fishing Limits)
  Red Sea (Rocket Attack)
  Red Sea (Rocket Attack)
  World Hunting Exhibition, Budapest
  World Hunting Exhibition, Budapest
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
CIVIL SERVICE
  Defence Civilian Employees (Pay)
  Defence Civilian Employees (Pay)
  British Rail (Pensions)
  British Rail (Pensions)
  Rail Fares (Discounts)
  Rail Fares (Discounts)
ENVIRONMENT
  A30, Camberley (Parking Restrictions)
  A30, Camberley (Parking Restrictions)
  Heavy Vehicles (Overnight Parking)
  Heavy Vehicles (Overnight Parking)
  Heavy Vehicle Drivers (Medical Checks)
  Heavy Vehicle Drivers (Medical Checks)
  A46, Newark
  A46, Newark
  M4 (Crash Barriers)
  M4 (Crash Barriers)
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  Newcastle-under-Lyme
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  HAEMOPHILIACS (VEHICLES)
  HAEMOPHILIACS (VEHICLES)
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRICES
  UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRICES
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sire Licensing
  Sire Licensing
SCOTLAND
  Quinquennial Revaluation
  Quinquennial Revaluation
SOCIAL SERVICES
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  National Health Service (Reorganisation)
  Possum Equipment
  Possum Equipment
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Charter Operations (Boeing 747)
  Charter Operations (Boeing 747)
  Cosmetic Treatment (North Staffordshire)
  Cosmetic Treatment (North Staffordshire)
  Abortions (Deaths)
  Abortions (Deaths)
  Liquidated Companies (Accumulated Losses)
  Liquidated Companies (Accumulated Losses)
  Motor Insurance Companies
  Motor Insurance Companies
  Anglo-Eire Free Trade Agreement
  Anglo-Eire Free Trade Agreement
  Air Near-collision (Heathrow-Northolt)
  Air Near-collision (Heathrow-Northolt)
WALES
  Neath and Swansea Valleys (Metal-related Illnesses)
  Neath and Swansea Valleys (Metal-related Illnesses)
  Colliery Workers (Northumberland and Durham)
  Colliery Workers (Northumberland and Durham)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community

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

BURIAL LAWS REVIEW
LORD GARDINER: 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, when the comprehensive Bill on burial laws, referred to in this House on the February 5, 1963, is likely to be introduced.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will recall that on January 25, in reply to a question he asked on this subject during the debate on the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that discussions were taking place between the Department of the Environment and the Law Commission. The Commission have since accepted the task of reviewing the law of burial in collaboration with the Department of the Environment and will be reporting to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, no doubt with a suggested comprehensive Bill. Decisions on the introduction of a Bill must wait until the report is received. The Commission hope to be able to report next year.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that answer, may I ask two supplementary questions? First, does he appreciate that the Question is not intended to be a criticism of the Government but of a Ministry which goes on promising this and does not do it? Secondly, is it not a fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, was only persuaded to withdraw his comprehensive Bill in 1963 by a promise by
690
the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, on behalf of the then Minister of Housing and Local Government that he would produce a more comprehensive Bill and
" That instructions to the draftsman will be prepared as quickly as possible. By that I mean without delay, though I cannot yet say definitely …when the comprehensive Bill will be ready. Therefore I cannot give a definite date. …We intend to proceed … without unnecessary delay and as soon as possible."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/2/1963; col. 508.]
Does the noble Lord not think that eight years is rather a long time to elapse since then?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, but I think that the noble and learned Lord will know that when his Administration took up the task they found that this was not an easy subject and not really suitable for a Private Members' Bill.

PROBATION AND PRISON SERVICES RECRUITMENT
3.9 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what extra steps it is proposed to take to improve recruiting to the Probation Service and Prison Officer Service.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, the Government accept that 4,700 probation officers may be needed by the end of 1975 and are planning to provide 200 additional training places, so that the annual output from training can be increased from 350 to 550. My right honourable friend hopes that at least half of these new training places will be available on one-year courses starting this autumn, so that the students concerned may have completed their pre-entry training before the end of 1972. These courses, together with the existing Home Office one-year course, have been advertised and have attracted some 1,300 applications.
On the second part of the Question relating to prison officer recruitment, the Government are providing for more intensive Press advertising, more local

691
recruiting drives and exhibitions, and an experiment designed to attract candidates to specified prisons. Recruitment is encouraging at the moment.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the Answer that he has given. Would he not agree that, no matter how successful are these recruiting campaigns, they will not match the outgoing staff leaving the Probation Service for other forms of social work? So far the prison officer staff is concerned, is it not a fact that whereas 1,000 more were needed last year, only 260 were actually recruited? Can the noble Lord really stand at that Box and say that there is any chance of keeping the present staff, unless there is an adequate salary structure?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, on the first part of the question, the noble Lord is not quite right. Wastage as regards both probation and prison officers has been less than the increase, so that the total strength of both Services has gone up each year over the last few years. The noble Lord will find that that is the case. On the recruiting of prison officers, the second part of his supplementary question, up to May 31 of this year applications were one-third higher than at that time last year—that is 4,000 as against 3,053. The quality of the response has also improved, resulting in more applicants being accepted—590 as against 375. On the third part of the noble Lord's question, on the need for proper financial remuneration for both Services, of course I agree with him that the very important work that is done should be properly rewarded, as he knows. The question of probation officers' pay is still under negotiation, and prison officers' pay is also being reviewed at the present time.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, quite apart from statistics, does not the noble Lord agree that there is a real sense of grievance in both these Services? Can the noble Lord say what the Government are going to do to remove this sense of grievance at the earliest possible moment?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to pay. The sense of grievance among probation officers on the question of pay has been
692
great. The Government have made an offer of between 8 and 8½ per cent. with effect from April 1, 1971, which in our view is realistic taking into account the national interest as well as the special needs of the Probation Service. We had reason to think that this offer was acceptable to the staff side, but at a recent conference the members of the National Association of Probation Officers called on their representatives to resign. New representatives have been appointed and a meeting of the Joint Negotiating Committee is due to be held to-morrow.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the offer was not acceptable to the staff side at all? It was pointed out to them very clearly that it was very much a matter of "take it or leave it"; so there was nothing very much they could do in the matter.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. the noble Lord is very well informed and we know his interest in this matter; but I do not think I can say anything more helpful at this stage. The Joint Negotiating Committee is meeting again tomorrow. I am pleased to see that the National Association have decided to appoint new representatives, while retaining some of the present ones, in order that discussions may continue.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I do not want to make this situation more difficult, but is my noble friend aware that a very dangerous situation will persist so long as there is a wide gap between the salaries offered to probation officers and those obtainable by people in the local authorities' social services?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. this is one of the factors that my right honourable friend is keenly aware of at the present time.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the rate of the increase in numbers which he mentioned in reply to my noble friend Lord Beswick?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in 1966, five years ago, the Prison Service was 8,700 strong. To-day, it is 11.567 strong, the number having increased each year. As at May 31 last year, the Probation Service was 3,400 strong, having

693
moved up each year since 1965, when it was 2,319 strong.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is misleading the House by giving those figures? Is he not aware, as I am sure he is, that though there was an increase in prison officers last year there was also an increase in the prison population—it increased last year by 5,000—and that an estimated additional 1,000 prison officers were needed, and only 260 came forward? Would he also reflect upon what he said about the quality of the new recruits? Is it not a fact that many of those who are now being established were rejected on the first application, and is there not great concern because of the number of untrained temporary staff now being taken on?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have no information on that last point. My information is that the quality of the response has improved. That is my advice, and if the noble Lord has other information I should he most grateful to hear it. I do not think I was misleading the House. It is quite true that the prison population has increased, and this is something which has given concern to the previous Administration as well as to the present one; but he asked me to give the present figures. The figures I gave him for both the Prison Service and the Probation Service were the actual figures in front of me.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the actual figures have never reached the target? In 1967, would he not agree that the target was 3,500 and the actual number fell far short of that? The target for 1969 was 3,700, and only 3,121 actually were in employment in the Prison Service. Would he also agree that it seems to be a rather extraordinary economic approach (to leave aside the social points made by my noble friend) to be so stingy with the payment of probation officers whereas it costs enormous sums to keep people in Borstal—something like £20 per week —and considerably more than that to keep people in prison?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is true that there is a shortage of probation officers. Anyone working in the courts or who is interested in penal policy is aware of this. However, this is a
694
trained service and the key is to increase the number of training places. As I said, the plan is to increase the output from the one-year courses from 350 to 550 per annum—a very substantial increase. The number of applicants, as I mentioned, is 1,300. I think this is the correct approach.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. might I ask the noble Lord whether he would confirm that the Service is losing experienced probation officers, which results in some courts having far too high a percentage of inexperienced probation officers? This is really a serious matter.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, these are all matters of which my right honourable friend is closely and personally aware. They have been raised during negotiations with the probation officers and they are being taken into account.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is aware how pleased the probation officers and the people working with the Probation Service were when Mr. Mark Carlisle said before the Howard League that the Department were going to produce a major increase in the Probation Service, on which the whole future of penal reform depends in this country, and how totally discouraged we all are to see what the Home Secretary, supported perhaps by the Government, thinks is a reasonable settlement on pay?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we must recognise that pay is not the only factor with a bearing on recruiting. There are other motives besides material reward which lead people into probation work and other forms of social service. At the same time, of course, we must take care not to exploit the admirable feelings of service to the community and to make sure that people who are engaged in work of this kind receive proper recompense. We do not think that the target of 4,700 is in any way unrealistic. As I said, for 100 places we have had 1,300 applicants.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the number of probation officers who are able to stay in the Service only because they take on secondary jobs, sometimes in farming, for example. and would he agree that it is a remarkable tribute to their

695
dedication to the work but that it is also a necessary limitation on efficiency in the performance of their duties?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I would agree with that; and it is for that reason that the pay of probation officers is, for the second time within twelve months, again under review.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not important not to be bewildered and bedevilled by this percentage? It is not 8½ per cent. which matters; it is the basis from which one starts. And the basis is wrong.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. we have had a thorough discussion on this matter. I have explained the Government's position, and I have said that negotiations are still in progress. This is the third time that we have discussed the subject, although I do not complain about that. If noble Lords want to raise it again on a subsequent occasion, I will then get further information for the House.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord clarify one point on the recent offer of pay increase; namely, the additional sum to be paid to graduates? Is this payable to graduate probation officers already in post, or only to new entrants? This is quite an important point.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising that matter. He is referring to the supplementary allowance. This applies to everyone in the Service, graduate and non-graduate, beyond the first four points on the salary scale. The graduate entrants, as the noble Lord will know, come in at the fifth point. Therefore it will apply to them at the time they join.

CIVIL AVIATION: EUROPEAN CONFERENCE AND FARES
3.22 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement concerning the one-day conference attended by representatives of the Department of Trade and Industry and British European Airways under the auspices of the European Civil Aviation Conference in Paris on June 2, and whether changes in the fares-fixing machinery were discussed.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the purpose of this meeting with the airlines was to exchange views about traffic on the North Atlantic routes and the possibility of reducing fares. There was also some discussion of the International Air Transport Association's unanimity rule, but this was any incidental to the main topic of conversation. No conclusions were reached.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while regretting that no conclusions were reached that is a little more information than usual. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the normal summer upsurge in scheduled airline traffic has not so far materialised this year? Is he further aware, and could he do anything to make B.E.A. aware also, that this upsurge is not likely to materialise unless some account is taken of the needs of the ordinary scheduled airline traveller, and some financial benefit offered to him, as well as to everyone else?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think I can reassure the noble Baroness to this extent: that there is a growing awareness of the need for scheduled services to be able to cater for the more popular demand, if I may so describe it, as well as for the normal scheduled travellers. This is a matter that will certainly be discussed at the IATA Conference on fares on the Atlantic routes which is to take place at the end of this month in Montreal.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is about the best answer I have had to date, except that which I got last week? May I ask him whether or not he would agree that lower fares would generate more traffic? Is there any reason why the ordinary scheduled airline traveller should

697
suffer because of the over-capacity of our airlines?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a question which depends largely on the unanimity rule in IATA, and it always has been a principle that there should be established fares for the scheduled lines, from which the concessionary fares derive. What I was saying was that side by side with that it should be possible to cater for capacity along the lines of the Earlybird fares.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, if at the forthcoming IATA Conference some common sense is not introduced into the present IATA restrictive fare structure, they have any steps which they propose to take in conjunction with other Governments?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend knows the way in which IATA functions. But I can say that the British representative at recent talks made it quite clear that, if IATA failed to introduce the right low fares, Governments would find it increasingly difficult to go on protecting the scheduled services against charter competition.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is about time that the IATA unanimity rule was modified, in that it is a rule which allows inefficient operators to continue and prevents lower fares for those who wish to fly on scheduled lines?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is some pressure at the present time for modification of the unanimity rule in IATA.

GIBRALTAR AIRPORT RUNWAY
3.24 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 whether they will consider having a feasibility study made (including a cost/ benefit analysis) for a runway extension at Gibraltar:

(a) by means of the proven methods of construction in off-shore locations;

698

(b) by means of a floating platform; or

(c) by means of a land/platform combination.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, this proposition has been considered more than once in recent years. As noble Lords who know Gibraltar will appreciate, any proposal to extend the runway in Gibraltar will involve a number of difficult problems. The whole matter has very recently been raised again by the Gibraltar authorities and is under examination.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for that reply. As this matter is being examined, would the Government consider examining a technically viable proposition, which I understand it to be, and that is for an extension to the East, partly on rock fill, and partly on a piled platform, with a floating breakwater at the end. That, I understand, is technically feasible. Can the Government look into this, if they are considering this matter seriously, as I hope they are?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, any investigation into the feasibility of this extension to the runway will, I am sure, take into account the point that the noble Lord has raised about extending the runway to the East. I was only pointing out that there are, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, great difficulties regarding the depth of water, and such matters. These are all problems which will have to be investigated thoroughly.

E.E.C. AND BRITAIN
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the E.E.C. Parliamentary timetable at a convenient moment after half-past three o'clock.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NULLITY OF MARRIAGE BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

HIGHWAYS BILL
3.29 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords' Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendment to one of the Lords' Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HIGHWAYS BILL
  COMMONS AMENDMENT TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
  [References are to the first Lords print—Bill 115. The Commons Amendment is printed in italics]

  LORDS AMENDMENT
  After Clause 27, insert the following new clause:
  Provision of areas for parking heavy goods vehicles, etc.
  "—(1) A highway authority shall have power to provide on land adjoining, or in the vicinity of, a highway or proposed highway for which they are, or, as the case may be, will be, the highway authority an area, which may be used for all or any of the following purposes, that is to say —

  (a) the parking of heavy goods vehicles;

  (b) the transfer of goods to or from any such vehicle from or to any other vehicle; and

  (c) the temporary storage of goods which have been or are to be carried or hauled by heavy goods vehicles.

  An area provided under this section is in this Act referred to as a "lorry area".
  (2) For the purpose of enabling a lorry area to be used as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the highway authority by whom the area is provided shall have power to erect buildings and execute works on the area for the purpose of providing all or any of the following, that is to say—

  (a) parking places for heavy goods vehicles and, if the lorry area is to be used for either or both of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1)(b) and (c) above, parking places for other vehicles which will be on the area in connection with that purpose or those purposes;

  700

  (b) a means of access to or from the area from or to a highway;

  (c) facilities for the accommodation of persons who will be on the lorry area in connection with any purpose for which the area may be used in pursuance of subsection (1) above or with the provision on the area of any such facilities as arc mentioned in this subsection;

  (d) facilities for the provision of meals and refreshments for such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above;

  (e) facilities for handling and storing goods which have been or are to be carried or hauled by heavy goods vehicles;

  (f) service station facilities for such vehicles and for other vehicles entitled to be on the lorry area;

  (g) sanitary conveniences (including lavatories) for such persons as are mentioned in paragraph (c) above;

  and power to install or provide in buildings erected by them under this subsection or elsewhere on the lorry area such equipment, furniture and apparatus as may be necessary for the purpose of providing such facilities or conveniences.
  (3) A highway authority shall have power to make arrangements with some other person, not being a council, for anything which that authority have power to do under subsection (2) above to be done by that other person and power to lease the lorry area or any part thereof to that other person, but shall not themselves have power to operate any such facilities as are mentioned in paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of that subsection.
  (4) Where a lorry area is provided by the Secretary of State under this section he may enter into agreements with a local authority for the exercise by that authority of all or any of his powers under subsection (2) above or of the powers conferred on him in his capacity as a highway authority by virtue of subsection (5) below, so, however, that section 10(2) of the principal Act (discharge of functions delegated by the Secretary of State to a council) shall apply to the exercise of the powers of a local authority under any such agreement and to the conditions to be included in any such agreement as it applies to the discharge of functions delegated under that section to a council and to the conditions to be attached to any such delegation.
  (5) Section 31 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 (power to make orders as to use of certain parking places) shall apply in relation to a lorry area as it applies in relation to an off-street parking place provided under section 28 of that Act as if for references to a local authority and such a parking place there were substituted references to a highway authority and a lorry area respectively, and sections 84A, 84B, 84C. 84D and 85 of that Act (provisions with respect to certain orders and offences, including orders and offences tinder the said section 31) shall have effect as if—

  (a) references therein to the said section 31 and a local authority included references to that section as applied by this subsection and I a local highway authority respectively;

  701

  (b) references in section 84D to a parking place included references to a lorry area; and

  (c) the reference in section 85(2) to the local authority for the parking place included a reference to the highway authority by whom the lorry area was provided.

  (6) The power of the Secretary of State under section 235 of the principal Act to make, with Treasury approval, advances to a highway authority shall include power to make such advences in respect of expenses incurred by such an authority in connection with the provision of a lorry area or in the exercise of any other power under this section.
  (7) A local authority may contribute towards any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under this section.
  (8) In this section—
  " goods " includes goods or burden of any description;
  " heavy goods vehicle " means a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage or haulage of goods, being a vehicle having an unladen weight of two tons or more, or a trailer;
  " local authority" has the same meaning as in section 27 of this Act;
  "motor vehicle " has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Act 1960;
  " trailer " means a vehicle constructed or adapted for use for the carriage of goods and drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle.")
  The Commons agreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment thereto:
  Line 48, leave out (" and (e)") and insert (", (e) and (f)").
  LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment. Your Lordships will see that this is not what we would call a substantial Amendment, substituting (e) and (f) for (e), and correcting a small drafting error which crept in through inadvertence when we were amending one of our Bills.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment to the Lords Amendment.—(Lord Sandford.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS 1971
3.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I beg to move, That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1971, the draft of which was laid before the House on May 17, be approved. These regulations increase the existing rates of requirements laid down in regulations made under the Ministry of Social Security Act 1966. The new rates of requirements will, together with an allowance for rent, make up the guaranteed levels of income for retired people and others not in full-time work, from September 20. As your Lordships will know, the last increase in Supplementary Benefit rates took place in November, 1970. It was more than enough to restore the value of Supplementary Benefits to what it had been a year before, in November. 1969. It is intended that this year's increase should fulfil the same purpose, of maintaining, indeed improving slightly, the standard of living of the most vulnerable members of our community—the elderly, the sick and disabled, widows, fatherless families and others who are unable to support themselves. The proposed increases, which will keep Supplementary Benefits in line with benefits paid under the National Insurance scheme, are large enough not only to protect people who depend on them from the effects of the rise in prices which has taken place in recent months. but also to provide them with at least some margin in hand for the future.
As your Lordships will understand, these regulations set out, not the actual rates of cash benefits but new levels of requirements, and a person's other income, including retirement pension and other National Insurance benefits (but leaving out some items which are disregarded), has to be taken into account when working out how much benefit he requires in order to bring his total income up to the guaranteed level. The main increases proposed in these regulations are 60p in the rate for a single householder, taking the rate up to £.5.80 a week, and 95p in the rate for married couples, giving a new rate of £9.45.

703
There are also proportionate increases in the rates for other adults, young people and children. In addition, some of the new rates include selective improvements which go beyond a proportionate increase and which are designed to concentrate help where it is most needed. The beneficiary who is not a householder receives a fixed addition for rent which is the equivalent of the rent allowance of a householder. This addition is also being increased by these regulations so that the amount will go up from 60p to 65p.
The general overall increase is set at 12 per cent. Taken with last year's increase, this means that Supplementary Benefit rates will have risen by one-fifth from 1969 to 1971. Although future price rises cannot be predicted with any certainty, the Government are confident that this will be more than adequate to make good the erosion in the value of Supplementary Benefits due to rising prices and thus to protect those members of our society who are unable to provide for themselves. The selective improvements, of course, go beyond this general increase. The first of them is an additional increase, which has the support of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, in the rates for children and young people aged from 13 to 20. The amounts that represent. an improvement here—that is, the sums over and above what a strictly proportionate increase would he are 35p for the 13 to 15 age-group, 25p for those aged 16 to 17 and 20p for those aged 18 to 20. This improvement will bring the rates for older children closer to those for adults and provide additional help for parents on Supplementary Benefit who have children in these age-groups.
The other selective improvement is an enhancement in the long-term addition of 50p which is paid to all supplementary pensioners and those under pension age (with the exception of the unemployed) who have received Supplementary Benefit for two years or more. The long-term addition replaces small discretionary additions to benefit for miscellaneous needs, though further discretionary additions can also be made if the long-term addition by itself is inadequate. It is proposed to increase the long-term addition
704
by 25p to 75p when either the pensioner or someone dependent on him is over 80. This will be a small, but real, improvement for those among the oldest supplementary pensioners (mostly widows and single women), whose special needs are not already provided for by discretionary additions to benefit over and above the long-term addition.
My Lords, I mentioned earlier that these regulations lay down levels of requirements, to which a person's other income is brought up (leaving out some items of income which are disregarded). National Insurance benefits are counted in full as income when the rate of benefit is being worked out, and I must therefore tell your Lordships that all the improvements made in those benefits by the National Insurance Bill now before Parliament, must be offset against people's requirements in deciding whether they are entitled to Supplementary Benefit. This principle applies also to the selective improvements in National Insurance benefits—such as those for the long-term sick —which the Government are introducing. We have given much serious thought to the possibility of disregarding part or all of the new National Insurance benefits when working out the entitlement of those recipients who also need Supplementary Benefit, but we have decided that this is not the right course. The National Insurance and Supplementary Benefit schemes are complementary parts of the total State scheme of social security; if National Insurance benefits were to be disregarded, the effect would be to provide twice over for the same contingency. This principle applies fully to the National Insurance benefits for the long-term sick. If it were abandoned, the effect would be to undermine one of the purposes of these new benefits, which is to reduce the extent to which the chronic sick have to rely on Supplementary Benefit.
However, my Lords, I am glad to say that these considerations do not apply to the new attendance allowance of £4.80 per week, which will be paid to the very severely disabled from December. This allowance will be paid to all who have, for a period of six months, satisfied the medical conditions of entitlement and the residence qualification, but there are no contribution conditions to be fulfilled. Because it meets a recognisable

705
and specific need which is common to all beneficiaries, it is right also to introduce into the Supplementary Benefits scheme a new provision for attendance requirements, applicable to those severely disabled people who will qualify for it; and this is achieved by draft Regulation 3.
The cost of the increases, if they are taken on their own, will be just under £116 million pounds in a full year. However, National Insurance benefits are also being increased this year, and this will lead to a saving on Supplementary Benefit expenditure which will more than offset the cost of the Supplementary Benefit increases, so that expenditure on Supplementary Benefit will actually be somewhat reduced. This is because an increase in National Insurance benefits always leads to a reduction in the amount of Supplementary Benefit paid to National Insurance beneficiaries. The increases will help nearly 3 million people and their dependants, including, as well as over 2 million pensioners, many thousands of the sick, widows and the unemployed. As well as protecting the standard of living of all those who must rely on Supplementary Benefits, these regulations seek to give additional help concentrated in the places where it is most needed. I am sure your Lordships will approve the purpose of these draft regulations and will wish to give them a speedy passage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1971, laid before the House on May 17 last, be approved.—(Lord Aberdare.)
3.38 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining the Supplementary Benefit Regulations, and, of course, as he will be aware, we on this side of the House will not attempt to do anything other than welcome them. I would merely say, while not wishing at this point to debate the principle underlying the changes which we shall probably have ample opportunity to do during the passage of the new National Insurance Bill—and this is not a Party point—that it always seems to me, each time we discuss these matters (and I felt this when I was in Government), that we make the
706
whole thing so complicated that we must, of necessity, employ far more people to administer the system than would be needed if it could be satisfactorily straightened out. While you are working out disregards and "claw-backs", you must be involved in some very complicated sums. I am happy to see that the attendance allowance is going to be available in December, 1971. But I would remind your Lordships, although perhaps no reminding is necessary, that if you are 80, the sooner you get your benefit the more likely it is that you will enjoy it on this earth, because if you have to wait for a year a great number of changes can take place during that time. I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that this change keeps pace with the increase in prices. It seems that we shall need to review these matters far more often if prices continue to rise at the present rate. However, I give every welcome to the Order now before the House.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can confirm that the Supplementary Benefit increases will coincide with the National Insurance increases; that is to say, that they will be operative in September of this year?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for the general welcome for these Regulations. I agree with her that all these matters are very complicated. Perhaps one of the reasons, particularly on the Supplementary Benefits side, is that they seek to take into account individual circumstances. If I may be allowed to pay tribute to the staff of some of these supplementary benefits offices, I would say that immense care and trouble is taken to ensure that special circumstances are taken into account and that discretionary grants are made. I also sympathise with the remarks the noble Baroness made about the elderly; certainly that point is well taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, asked me when the Regulations come into effect. Regulations 1 and 2 come into operation on September 20, and Regulation 3 on December 6.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I attach a great deal of importance to what the noble Lord said about the

707
constant attendance allowance. We so often find people who know little about new regulations. What method are the Government going to adopt to draw the attention of the people of the country to the fact that this constant attendance allowance has been introduced and is of such considerable value?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a new allowance and already there has been a considerable publicity drive to draw everybody's attention to it; and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, is busily at work dealing with claims. But I certainly agree that this is a subject to which we must give continuing publicity.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

E.E.C. AND BRITAIN: PARLIAMENTARY TIMETABLE
3.44 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I should like, with the permission of your Lordships' House. to repeat a Statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. This is the text of the Statement:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement on how the Government sees the arrangements for Parliamentary consideration of the question of British accession to the European Communities.
" It may be helpful if I begin by setting out the stages which must be completed before we can become a member of the Communities. We have first to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. Second, Parliament should be invited to take a decision of principle on whether the arrangements so negotiated are satisfactory and whether we should proceed to join the Communities. If that be agreed, we have, third, to resolve the remaining issues in the negotiations. Fourth. a treaty of accession has to be prepared and signed. Fifth, legislation to give effect to that treaty has to be drafted, considered by Parliament and enacted. Finally, we and the other parties to the treaty have to deposit instruments of ratification of the treaty.
708
"As to the first of these stages, we hope that it will be possible to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations by the end of this month. As soon as possible thereafter the Government will publish a White Paper setting out in detail the arrangements that have been agreed and the Government's conclusions on whether they constitute a satisfactory basis for joining the Communities.
" The timing of subsequent stages depends upon striking a balance between a number of conflicting considerations. On the one hand, uncertainty will persist until Parliament has taken its decision. We owe it to our partners in the negotiations, to our fellow-applicants for membership, whose decisions will to some extent depend on ours, and to ourselves, to resolve this uncertainty as soon as we can. Moreover, the marketing and investment planning of British industry, and future planning in many other sectors of our national life, are vitally dependent on the decision. It is right that all concerned should know as soon as possible where they stand.
" On the other hand, the Government has always acknowledged the need for the whole question to be fully considered and discussed by Parliament and by the public before Parliament is asked to take the decision of principle on it. Although it is true that the main arguments for and against our joining the Communities have been before the public since the first application for membership ten years ago, it is right that we should take time to consider them in the light of the outcome of my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's negotiations in Brussels and Luxembourg.
" In the light of these considerations, the timetable which the Government proposes is as follows.
" The House will be invited to debate the White Paper before it rises for the Summer Recess. The detailed arrangements for this debate will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government envisages that it should be an expository and exploratory debate, on a Motion which does not invite the House to take the decision of principle at the end of this

709
debate, though we must of course reserve our freedom of action in the event of any substantive amendment to such a Motion.
" Then, when Parliament meets again after the Recess, there will be a second debate, at the conclusion of which the House will be asked to decide in principle whether Britain should join the European Communities.
" In the meantime, our delegation in Brussels will continue to negotiate on such issues as still remain outstanding. The aim will be to carry forward these negotiations and work on drafting a treaty of accession so that, if Parliament decides in the autumn that Britain should join the Communities, the treaty of accession can be signed by the end of this year.
" This would allow the whole of 1972 to complete what would require to be done before our accession. In Parliamentary terms, this would mean that Parliament would be invited to consider and to pass the consequential legislation, which would be substantial, by the end of the Session 1971-72. Thereafter, the instrument of ratification of the treaty of accession would be deposited, in time for our accession to the Communities to be effective from January 1, 1973."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement. I should perhaps add that it would be our intention here to propose broadly similar arrangements for discussing this subject in your Lordships' House as are being proposed for another place. The precise timing of such arrangements and the details could well, I suggest, be followed up through the usual channels.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Earl for repeating not only a Statement but a Statement which seems, to me at any rate, to be very clear. I am quite sure that the Government are right and have listened to wise advice. No doubt this wise advice came from within the Government as well as outside, judging from the reports in the Press, not to rush a decision. Whether we are for entry into the Common Market or against, depending on the terms, I am sure this is a matter
710.
of such momentous importance that it is right that it should be given the fullest consideration. I should therefore like to ask the noble Earl, while again expressing satisfaction that he suggests we should discuss this matter through the usual channels, where he thinks he is going to find time for the debate before we rise for the Summer Recess. Perhaps he will find a way of achieving this. I ask this question for the serious reason that I am quite sure that there should be sufficient time to allow all noble Lords who desire to speak in the debate to do so. This House classically is good at expressing individual opinons and giving counsel, and I suspect that we shall need quite a long time for this debate. Therefore, I hope that it will not be a matter of squeezing it in, as sometimes inevitably happens, in too short a space. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could express whether or not he is in agreement with that sort of approach. I will make no further comments now, because clearly the time to debate the terms is when we come to the debates proposed by the Government.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a compromise solution and that it has to be one, but I can only express regret that it has not been found possible to have a decision taken in principle before we go into Recess. It is Parliament that has to make the decision, and if we are fully apprised of the situation at the end of June I should have thought that Parliament would be well enough informed to make the decision in principle by the end of July. Having said that, and appreciating the difficulties, we shall reluctantly have to accept the proposed timetable.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception of this Statement which has been accorded by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition here. In reply, I will confine myself to saying that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said about the need for finding them. I also agree, in view of the inevitably rather crowded programme —and we always have this problem in your Lordships' House towards the end of the summer, and perhaps for one reason or another we have it rather more acutely than usual this summer—that we

711
must take steps to find the time. Whatever view we take of the subject, this is a matter of vital importance to the future of our country. All I can do is to assure noble Lords that I recognise the need to find adequate time, and I can give an unqualified assurance that adequate time will be found before the Summer Recess.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I first express my gratitude to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement? I have not a copy of the Statement before me but it seemed that there was one caveat, and I should like to have it clarified. We gather that this debate is for exploration and exposition, but somewhere in the Statement it said—if I took it down correctly—" though we must reserve freedom of action ". By that statement are the Government reserving a freedom of action to make a decision?
Lastly, while thanking the noble Earl for saying that we shall find the time, we need to have a debate without hurling ugly epithets at one another because there may be differences of opinion. I sincerely hope that we shall have at least two days to discuss this matter, if not three.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, answering first the second point put to me by the noble Lord.. Lord Davies of Leek, the amount of time will depend, of course, on the number of noble Lords who wish to speak; but quite clearly we should not wish to squeeze in this debate. In my view, it would be quite wrong to do so, and all I can say at this stage—and, of course, it is rather hypothetical, because we do not know how many noble Lords will wish to speak is that adequate time will be found without a squeeze. I attach great importance to this, as indeed to the fact that the debate should be conducted in the way that is appropriate and customary in your Lordships' House, and I have absolutely no doubt that such will be the case.
On the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, perhaps I should just repeat that part of the Statement in order that it may be, quite clear, although I think it is self-explanatory:
" The Government envisages that it should be an expository and exploratory debate, on a Motion which does not invite the House to take the decision of principle at the end of this debate, though we must of course reserve our
712
freedom of action in the event of any substantive amendment to such a Motion."
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that there are others who are private Members in your Lordships' House who would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in regretting that no substantive decision has been made on a matter which is of great political importance—far greater political importance than economic importance—and the political issues of which have been well-known to Parliament for many years past? May I also express the hope that perhaps circumstances may arise between now and the end of July which will enable the Government to change their attitude to this.
May I ask, secondly, whether my noble friend, no doubt after much consultation through the usual channels, will consider that this is the one—if not perhaps the most important—occasion during this Parliamentary era when there should be a free vote in your Lordships' House?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said, but on the question of the Government's decision, to which they have come regarding the arrangements proposed, all I can say is that there was a difficult balance of considerations to be taken into account, but I can assure my noble friend that these various considerations have been very carefully weighed.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I am quite sure that it is my fault, but it is not quite clear to me exactly when the second and more decisive debate will take place. The noble Earl said that it would be after the Recess: does that mean in the overlap of this Session or after the opening of Parliament for a new Session?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I envisage that our expository and exploratory debate will take place towards the end of the next month or very early the following month—if in fact we are still here then. That would be the approximate timing, and the timing for the further debate would be in the autumn. I would rather assume that it would be in October, but I would not wish to be committed to any specific timing at this stage.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, does that mean that it might be in October, before the opening of Parliament?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I said that I would not wish to be committed to a specific time at this stage.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, without wishing to extend the scope of the present exchanges, may I ask whether, within the terms of the present negotiations, it is possible for representations to be made to the Commission or to the negotiators on the subject of industrial directives which may at present be in process of being tabled by the Commission, so that the interests of this country, which would be highly prejudiced should such directives go forward at this point in time, would be protected in some way by our tabling information which could in fact guide the Commission? I realise that this is a very wide question, and one does not wish in any way to call into question the good faith of the Commission and the people it represents, but at the same time one knows that important directives are in process of being tabled which possibly might justifiably be stayed for a little while until the position has become settled.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not feel that it would be right for me to go too deeply into the substance of the negotiations in discussing what is, after all, a procedural statement. All I would say is that the consideration which the noble Lord has adducd is one which is in the mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I would prefer to leave it at that at this stage and perhaps we could refer to the matter later.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Statement will give great pleasure to many of us who, while hoping that we still will enter the European Community, recognise the considerable needs of the Commonwealth? Is he further aware that the country at large (and particularly the Commonwealth) will welcome these flexible negotiations and the fact that there will be no undue rush?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can detect some slight difference of opinion between my noble friend who has just spoken and my noble friend Lord Alport. All I would say is that I think it becomes
714
me to tread warily this afternoon, like Agag, and say once again that there was a balance of considerations here.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, while personally strongly supporting our adherence to the E.E.C. on proper terms, may I ask my noble friend a question which possibly lies a little outside the Statement on the programme which he has made? Can he say whether our partners in the European Free Trade Area are being regularly consulted in these matters and to what extent the EFTA Treaty, which I presume is still binding upon us, can be reconciled with our joining the Community? May I ask that this point, which is a rather important point because in a way it affects our honour in relation to other countries in EFTA, will not be lost sight of?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord straight away the assurance which he has asked me to give. Our EFTA partners are being very closely consulted by us at all stages in these negotiations. As my noble friend knows, some of the other applicants are also members of EFTA, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, after the last meeting at Luxembourg, flew to a meeting of EFTA in Iceland. There is the very closest consultation between us and our EFTA partners.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can we gather from the noble Earl's Statement that the French President has given his approval or expressed his agreement to the timetable that the noble Earl has announced?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, before the treaty of accession is signed, we shall have a guarantee, a definite assurance and guarantee, that the Governments with which we sign the treaty of accession are viable? Will he take note of the difficulty experienced in Italy at the present time, and it may be in the foreseeable future, of creating a stable Government?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will take note of the noble Lord's attitude, which, as usual, has a trace of mischievousness about it.

STATUE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
4.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee(on Recommitment) accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 to 3 agree to
Schedule [Enactments Repealed];
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved, as an Amendment, to leave out Part I of the Schedule. The noble Viscount said: The reason I put down this Amendment is that I do not consider that Part I of the Schedule of this Bill, which relates to constitutional rights of the Irish Peerage, is the correct procedure to deprive a substantial group of people, numbering in all 145, of their Parliamentary rights. My noble Leader said a moment ago that he felt rather like Agag. I feel rather, as I survey the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, like David as he surveyed Goliath. I do not wish my noble and learned friends on the Cross-Benches to suffer the same fate as Goliath, but I must warn them that I consider that I have some very stout stones in my sling.
Perhaps, for the convenience of some of your Lordships, we might briefly run through the history of the case of the Irish Peers as it affects the House of Lords. All your Lordships will know that the Union with Ireland Act 1800 gave the Irish Peers the right to elect 28 of their number to your Lordships' House for life. In 1922, as your Lordships also know, three-quarters of Ireland became the Irish Free State under various Acts culminating in the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act. When that came to pass, the machinery for electing representatives of the Irish Peerage lapsed, because as the machinery consisted of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and the
716
Clerk of the Crown of Hanaper, sitting in Dublin, those two offices became obsolete. Since the machinery lapsed, no representatives of the Irish Peerage have been elected, the last Representative Peer dying in 1961. Just about the time the last Irish Representative Peer in your Lordships' House died, the Irish Peers' Association was formed. At that time, as your Lordships remember, we had just passed the Life Peerages Act, and various reforms were coming up in your Lordships' House; and so the Irish Peers thought that they ought to combine to protect their interest. I have had the honour of representing the Association of Irish Peers in your Lordships' House. I am afraid I have not been very successful in promoting their interests as regards your lordship's House, but perhaps, if I may so, the odds have been against me.
Then we come to 1924 when the third Lord Oranmore and Browne sought the opinion of eminent counsel; he sought the opinion of two very eminent lawyers at that time, F. H. Maugham and W. A. Greene, who later became respectively Lord Chancellor and Master of the Rolls. May I just read the opinion of those two eminent lawyers on the rights of the Peers of Ireland as at that date? They concluded:
" The North of Ireland now represents Ireland for those purposes of the Act of Union which involve the representation of elected Irish Peers in the House of Lords whose rights to sit and vote on the part of Ireland notwithstanding the recent legislation "—
by which they meant the legislation setting up the Irish Free State—
" is unassailable."
So we have those two eminent lawyers who gave that opinion: that the right of the Irish Peers to be represented in your Lordships' House as at that date was unassailable; that the Act which set up the Irish Free State had not affected their rights in any way. This was printed in the Public Law Book. 1967.
In 1962 a Joint Committee of your Lordships' House, the Joint Committee on Lords Reform, was not in favour of the revival of any such representation, but they gave no reason for that view. In 1966 a Petition was presented by 12 Irish Peers to the Committee for Privileges praying that your Lordships will declare.
" the right of the Peerage of Ireland to be represented by 28 of their number in your

717
Lordships' House in accordance with the Union with Ireland Act 1800."
As your Lordships will know, the Committee for Privileges is not a court of law. The majority of its members are political from your Lordships' House. It is what one would call, in legal jargon, a "lay tribunal". Of course there are Law Lords on the Committee for Privileges, and on this occasion the Chairman of the Committee was a very distinguished noble:and learned Lord, whom I see on the Cross-Benches. the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. He was supported by other Law Lords, including the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. and, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and the noble and learned Lord. Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest.
The Committee for Privileges dismissed the Petition, but gave reasons for their decision. The case was argued before them by counsel for the Association of Irish Peers, and it was gone into reasonably thoroughly. The Committee accepted the Opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, that the Irish Representative Peers were to sit "on the part of Ireland" but, as he pointed out, as a result of the Irish Free State legislation in 1922, Ireland as a whole no longer existed politically. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said— and I quote from col. 365 of Vol. 278 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
" If the Irish representative Peers were elected to represent Ireland, I cannot see how there could be an election of a Peer to represent something which no longer exists politically."
The Opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, rather contradicted the Opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. They rather tore each other's opinions apart. Notwithstanding that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, did agree to the dismissal of the Petition, and this House accepted the Committee's Report.
In his speech the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, went on to say to the Committee:
" On the other hand, if I could hold that the Irish representative Peers sat as representatives of the Irish Peerage, I would not find it possible to say that any right of the Irish Peerage to he represented in this House had lapsed or has been repealed."
We now find ourselves in the position where the most eminent lawyers in the
718
land disagree as to our rights. We have the opinions of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Maugham and Lord Greene, that,
" The North of Ireland now represents Ireland for those purposes of the Act of Union which involve the representation of elected Irish Peers in the House of Lords "
and their rights therefore to sit and vote on the part of Ireland are unassailable. We also have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, disagreeing that "on the part of Ireland" can include the North of Ireland. Then we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, adding:
"…if I could hold that the Irish Representative Peers sat as representatives of the Irish Peerage, I would not find it possible to say that they have lost any right to be represented in this House."
We now come to a dilemma. I have read the Act of Union and the supporting Acts. The Act of Union itself and its supporting Acts are indecisive on this very point. An Act passed under the authority given in the Act of Union to settle matters of procedure refers to Representative Peers sitting as representatives of the Irish Peerage; actually not on the part of Ireland but as representatives of the Irish Peerage. I think it is generally held that Peerages are not territorial. One can quote several learned works, such as Halsbury's Laws of England to prove this point. There was the Berkeley Peerage case in 1858 to 1862 which, I thought, settled once and for all that you cannot have a peerage of tenure. In other words, Peers are not territorial. We have had many men who have been created Irish Peers who have had no connection with Ireland at all. Therefore, whether or not it is correct, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid. says, that Irish Peers only sat on behalf of the whole of Ireland, they would appear to have equally good a case to sit as representatives of the Irish Peerage. In fact, I cannot really describe this situation better than to say that it is typically Irish.
But where do we go from here? The Irish Peers have gone where we never knew we were going. We were never told that we were going where we have gone. We have gone to the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the Commons on Consolidation Bills, et cetera,

719
but we have come in the "et cetera" in this Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, jumbled together with a host of defunct ecclesiastical Measures. It was brought to my notice, by chance, that the repeal of the rights of the Irish Peerage were included in this Bill. It might have slipped through, and none of us would have known anything about it. Could we not have been informed'? We have a large Association and a Committee. Why were representatives of our Association not called before the Joint Committee to give evidence? I realise that the Joint Committee is relatively an innovation. I think it was started by the noble and learned Lord who sits opposite me, the former Lord Chancellor. Like all innovations, perhaps it is not quite sure yet of its ground. This was, to use a legal phrase, a value judgment. I understand that previously in this Joint Committee when they had a value judgment and individuals' rights were being affected the Committee sought their views, but it would appear that we have been treated, not arrogantly but, to use an Irish word in a "flahooley" manner—if there is such a word. I rather pity the shorthand writer. But we have been treated rather carelessly and inconsiderately.
If the constitutional rights of individuals or groups are to be altered or abolished by Committees closeted away somewhere upstairs, this sets a rather dangerous precedent. We do not want to return to the Star Chamber, in which one or two of my ancestors, I think, were involved. Whatever views one may hold about the rights of Irish Peers, the use of the clauses in this Bill which purport to repeal enactments which are no longer of practical utility is really not the proper method for bringing about changes of such constitutional importance. After all, if this Statute Law (Repeals) Bill goes through unamended, we shall be depriving 145 Peers of their Parliamentary rights to sit in this House as Irish Peers. We shall be depriving them of their constitutional rights. Surely it would have been far better if the Government had produced a Bill solely for that purpose. It could have been called the "Repeal of the Rights of the Irish Peers under the Act of Union of 1800." Everybody would then have known what
720
was being proposed. It would have been quite plain and above board, and that would have been a far more dignified method. I beg to move.
4.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I rise to support the Amendment of my noble friend, with appreciation for the lucid and admirable, not to say entertaining, way in which he has given us a rundown of the whole history of the Irish Peers and their difficult situation. It is not among the least of the charms of your Lordships' House that, from time to time, it makes an excursion into what can almost be called inconsequence. It might even be possible for a stranger coming into the Public Gallery to be deluded for a moment on a particular day into thinking that the Palace of Westminster was to some extent a Palace of Varieties. We have such an occasion this afternoon. We are met together to discuss the repeal of various laws, including the Steam Engine Furnaces Act 1821, an Act to enable Her Majesty to settle an annunity on Her Royal Highness the Princess Beatrice Victoria Feodore, and a proper rag-bag of old Acts which we are trying to get rid of with as little trouble as possible.
At the beginning of the Bill is an Act dealing with the representation of the Irish Peers. I do not think that these matters go together. By all means let us have an Act to abolish the Steam Engine Furnaces Act 1821—I would say that it is high time. But is it reasonable to abolish the representation of the Irish Peers in quite such an off-hand way as that, by this dustpan and brush method by which you can simply tear up the Acts of Parliament and the ghosts of the Writs of Summons and the Letters Patent which they have received over centuries gone by, and discard them along with the annuity of Princess Beatrice Victoria Feodore into your Lordships' wastepaper basket? I consider—and I think your Lordships will perhaps agree with me—that this is highly improper.
My noble friend has run very ably and rapidly through the history of this matter since the Union and I do not wish to touch on any of those matters again because, as he was at pains to explain, that was not the purpose of his speech. His purpose was simply to guide your Lordships with a little information which

721
may not be entirely familiar to us all as to what this is all about. But I think I do not misrepresent my noble friend when I say that that is not what the Amendment is about. He made it clear enough that his point was simply to move an Amendment to have this Schedule taken out of the Bill in order that, if this matter is to be decided by your Lordships' House —and, indeed, how can it be decided anywhere but in Parliament?—it should be decided as a result of proper discussion and deliberation upon the Floor of this Chamber and, of course, in the other place as well. That is something which has never happened. The Committee for Privileges has discussed the matter and has ruled against it. Other learned groups of men have discussed it and, on the whole, have come down in favour of the continuation of the representation of Irish Peers. But none of those bodies, none of those individuals, none of those combinations of individuals, however noble and however learned, has the force that resides alone within your Lordships' House itself.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think my noble friend is in error there. The Report of the Committee for Privileges was endorsed by a Resolution of this House in 1966. He is mistaken in thinking that it was not.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: That is correct, but it was in a particularly thin House.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No House can be a thin House which includes my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: That brings me to my feet. I should just like to say this about this matter. The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, has spoken as if this Bill is taking away rights held by members of the Irish Peerage.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: On a point of order, I think I intervened—I hope not rudely—in the speech of my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. I think it is not yet time for us to hear my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I apologise, but I looked at the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and he remained in his seat,
722
no doubt shattered by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had said.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I think, in fact, that I was shattered at being looked at by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. But I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for coming to my rescue. I was about to attempt the feat myself, but perhaps I should not have been quite so successful. I take the point of my noble and learned friend, that this matter was discussed and a Resolution was come to. I am not clear, as a matter of law, whether or not that Resolution had the effect of putting an end to the Irish Representatative Peerage. If it had, then this Bill would not be before us now. Therefore it appears to me that in fact the matter has not yet been decided. You cannot have it both ways. We are therefore being asked to decide it this afternoon, and it is my contention and that of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that this is not the way to do it.
My noble friend mentioned numerous questions which have not really been discussed with the full knowledge of your Lordships, and I would mention a rider to the question of the Peers of Northern Ireland. Whom do they represent? Do they represent what remains of the Irish Peerage of the whole Kingdom of Ireland? Do they represent only themselves? Do they represent nothing at all? If they represent the whole Peerage of Ireland, why, then, have they been abolished? If they are "territorial"—using that word in inverted commas—then the territory which they represent is still in a state of union with the Crown. and even if they are a part of the Irish Peerage as a whole, which they represent, most of that Peerage has fallen into abeyance or some kind of disbarment from representation and they—at least in the Six Counties—represent a fragment of what is left. In fact, they represent 6 /32nds, which, as I work it out, entitles them to a representation of 5.25 Members in your Lordships' House. That is the kind of thing—without the arithmetic—which ought to he debated, but I do not believe it ever has been.
The Peerage of Ireland, to which myself belong, is not a new thing. It is

723
no different in antiquity or in dignity from any other part of the Peerage—from the Peerage of England, of Scotland, of the United Kingdom or of Great Britain. Is it proper that your Lordships should, in the midst of this little ragbag of a Bill, taken on the afternoon of Gold Cup Day in the middle of Ascot Week, shove all these old Lords out of the way as though they had never been of any account at all? I doubt it. I can stand with a foot in both camps here because, after all, I am a Peer of Great Britain; so I have no interest to declare in this matter. Indeed. who has?—there is no money in it. But it might be as well if, when we are considering whether or not it is a question of the constitutional rights of Peers being taken away, we should reflect too, just in passing, that it is a matter also of constitutional duty being taken away. These Representative Peers certainly never have, and I do not suppose ever would, put themselves forward for election as representatives unless they chose to discharge that duty; and if they were here they would no doubt, as indeed they did when they were here, play a useful, constructive and not unworthy part in your Lordships' deliberations.
Therefore, is it not reasonable that if this ancient Peerage—because it has existed for something like 900 years—is to be swept away for ever from your Lordships' House, it should be done by a means somewhat more dignified than this? Should not the whole of your Lordships' House—I am not using that word incorrectly, I think; I know very well I am addressing a Committee—sit together in deliberation on this matter, to discuss whether or not the representation of a part of your own membership should be allowed to continue or should not? It ought not, simply at this moment in the afternoon, in the midst of a ragbag of old, assorted odds and ends of unwanted legislation, be swept into the rubbish basket. I certainly support the Amendment.
4.33 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I rise to speak to this Amendment, not on behalf of the Opposition but as a Member of your Lordships' House, because while this matter has been debated many times it has never been treated as a Party question.
724
I do so partly because when the matter was last before your Lordships' House, to our great regret, the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chancellor was not a Member of the House, and I therefore had to deal with it; and I thought that perhaps I ought shortly to remind your Lordships of the general position.
There is of course no doubt that the Act of Union of 1800 conferred a right on the Irish Peers to elect 28 of their number to sit and vote in your Lordships' House on behalf of Ireland; and legislation laid down the procedure for their election. It was a procedure under which certain acts had to be performed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland and certain acts had to be performed by a gentleman whose full title, I think, was that of Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper of Ireland. Of course, the country Ireland, as such, has not existed since the Irish Free State Act; there is no Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and there is no Clerk of the Crown. It is not surprising, therefore, that there has been no election since 1919. Those who had been elected remained Members of your Lordships' House until their death, and the last of them died in 1961. I myself have never been able to understand how, in those circumstances, it could possibly be contended that these Acts have any effect any more. However, the matter has been raised several times.
In 1962 it was fully considered by the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. That, of course, was not the All-Party Conference on House of Lords Reform, of which I had the privilege of being Chairman, but the earlier one. That Committee had before it memoranda by the Official Group, by the noble Lord, Lord Dunboyne, and by other noble Lords interested. The Committee expressed themselves as
" not in favour of the revival of any form of representation for the Peerage of Ireland in the House of Lords ".
The matter was next raised on the Peerage Bill in 1963, when an Amendment was moved which might have had the effect of restoring a right to the Peers of Ireland; but that was defeated by 90 votes to 8. But it was then pointed out that as the Irish Peers were no longer eligible to sit in your Lordships' House,

725
they ought to be eligible, which they were not then, to sit in the other place. Accordingly, an Amendment was moved and carried during the proceedings on the Peerage Bill conferring on Irish Peers the right to be eligible to sit and vote in the House of Commons.
That was not the end of the matter. because in 1965 a Petition was presented in the sense contended for then and now by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I had then to consider what advice to give to your Lordships' House. In February, 1966, the noble Viscount moved a Motion that the Petition should be referred to the Committee for Privileges, and I had to consider whether the time of the Committee for Privileges ought to be taken up with it. But the reason, as I then explained to the House, why I thought that it ought to go to the Committee for Privileges was that it had been said by the noble Viscount—and it seemed to me a good point—that while it was quite true that this question had been raised many times, and always decided against the contentions advanced, it had never been considered fully and exhaustively, and that we should never achieve finality unless it was fully and properly considered by the Committee for Privileges, before whom the Irish Peers could be represented by counsel. I said on that occasion:
"The Petitioners say that, while they have put their claim before, it has never been argued by counsel, as it would be before the Committee for Privileges nor have their legal rights ever been fully inquired into.
"The Government feel that the claim of the Petitioners is one which will probably continue to be raised from time to time unless a full inquiry into the claim is made, and that the Committee for Privileges is the proper body to make that inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3/2/66, col. 574.]
The Committee for Privileges which considered the Petition consisted of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, as Chairman; the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce; the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; the noble Earl. Lord Dundee; the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn; the noble Earl, Lord Swinton; the noble Earl, Lord Attlee; the noble Lord, Lord Rea; the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; the noble Lord, Lord Silkin; the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore; the noble Lord, Lord Strang
726
;the noble Lord, Lord Conesford; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borthy-y-Gest; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson. I thought at the time, if I may say so, that we had really done the noble Viscount proud. That Committee had a number of meetings, and I observe from their very full Report that the arguments put before them occupy 236 columns of print. The Committee reached a unanimous conclusion
" that. by virtue of the provisions of the Union with Ireland Act 1800, twenty-eight Irish representative peers sat in this House on the part of Ireland, each being elected for life: that on the death of an Irish representative peer an election of a successor was held in the manner provided by the said Act: that no such election has been held since 1919: that those Irish peers who had been so elected continued to sit as members of the House until their respective deaths and that the last Irish peer so elected died in 1961: and …that the provisions of the said Act relating to the election of Trish representative peers ceased to be effective on the passing of the Irish Free State (Agreement) Act 1922: and that the right to elect Irish representative peers no longer exists."
The Committee concluded:
"That for the reasons stated in the opinions published herewith the prayer of the petitioners should be rejected."
It was on November 24, 1966, that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Reid, moved that the Report of the Committee be agreed to. I have carefully re-read everything that the noble Viscount said on that occasion, and perhaps he would agree with me that he has not said anything this afternoon that he did not say on that occasion. We had the Maugham and Greene decisions; we had the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, based his opinion rather more on one ground than another and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, on another. The noble Viscount suggested that the Report should be referred back on the grounds that he has put before the House this afternoon. A number of noble Lords disagreed with that, including my noble friend Lord Shepherd, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said:
" My Lords, as a member of the Committee, I support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The Committee really did go into all aspects of this question. Every single argument was deployed on both sides. We listened to them all, and we came definitely and unanimously to the conclusion that the Petition could not he accepted, for the simple reason that the entity that is the whole of

727
Ireland, which Irish Representative Peers had been hitherto selected to represent, no longer existed. That was the result of our examination."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24 /11/66; col. 3711
At the end, when I put the Motion from the Woolsack, the noble Viscount did not carry the matter to a Division and therefore the Report of that Committee was unanimously accepted by your Lordships' House. There is no other authority. In the arguments, the Petitioners not only conceded but themselves advanced the fact, that in law the only body which can decide this question is your Lordships' House and no one else. The House has therefore decided. That being so, the only body which can so decide having already decided that under these Acts the Peers of Ireland have not now any legal rights at all, I cannot imagine what can possibly be the good of keeping them on the Statute Book. That was what the Joint Consolidation Committee had to decide; that was what they decided. In one sense nothing is ever final: Parliament, I suppose, can at any time change its mind. There is nothing whatever to prevent the noble Viscount from introducing a Private Member's Bill to-morrow to provide that in the future the Peers of Ireland should have some right to representation in this House. But the Bill would have to contain machinery for their election because, for the reasons I have ventured to give, the present Acts are absolutely useless for that purpose. They are dependent on there being a Lord Chancellor of Ireland and a Clerk of the Crown. I myself, as an individual Member of this House, hope that this Amendment will not be accepted for the reason that I have ventured to give: because of the unanimous decision of this House made in 1966.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he very briefly deal with the main point of my noble friend's speech which was the unsuitability of dealing with this matter in this hotch-potch of a Bill? That was the main point.
Loin GARDINER: The object of a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill is to remove from the Statute Book Acts which serve no useful purpose. The whole House, on the unanimous Report of the Committee for Privileges, having decided that
728
the Irish Peers have no legal rights under any of these Acts, I cannot understand what possible object there can be in keeping them on the Statute Book.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the decision of the House on the resolution to which the noble Lord has referred is correct, then 1 should have thought that there can be absolutely no doubt that these provisions are obsolete and are properly included, with some very odd bedfellows, in the Bill. What the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, is raising, is the correctness of the decision of the House made on that occasion and the correctness of the conclusions of the Committee for Privileges. He has challenged the views expressed by those who wrote Opinions on that case. May 1 say this? If those Opinions are right, there is no question of taking away in this Bill any rights now held by anyone, by any member of the Irish Peerage at all, because those rights are not there if that Opinion is right.
I do not want to go over the whole matter, except that I think it is worth bearing in mind that the Act of Union provided for there being one Parliament for Great Britain and Ireland. One consequence of that was the abolition of the Irish Parliament, and provision was made by that Act for representation in the one Parliament of Peers, of Bishops and of commoners. I think there were to be 100 commoners elected from Ireland in the Commons, four Bishops elected by the other Bishops of Ireland in this House and these 28 Irish Peers who were to be elected by members of the Irish Peerage. That is how the formation of one House came about. Then it was not a right given as a benefit, as I saw it, to individual members of the Irish Peerage; it was to enable Ireland to be represented in this Parliament. That is recognised in many statutory provisions. When Ireland ceased to exist, then of course Eire was created and an entirely new political entity, Northern Ireland, with a separate Parliament of its own. I for one cannot regard Northern Ireland, the Six Counties, as the successors of any rights which attached to Ireland as a whole as a political entity of its own. That has ceased to exist.
So I say this. I have now read and studied the Opinion to which the noble

729
Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, referred. He referred to it, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said, when the resolution was discussed; so presumably that Opinion was known to the members of the association and the Petitioners to the Committee for Privileges, of whom the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, was one, at the time of the hearing. I do not recall any reference being made before the Committee for Privileges to that Opinion. Perhaps it was not thought proper. What I recall is that eminent counsel were employed for the Petitioners and they advanced every possible argument; and the arguments they advanced touched on some of the matters dealt with in the Opinion. I have read the Opinion recently and so far as I am concerned and for what it is worth I would not wish to alter one iota of the Opinion that I wrote. Nor would I feel any doubt as to the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Committee.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, speaking as an Irish Peer who is not an Irish Peer, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard on the courageous way in which he has steered through very difficult legal waters. I do not wish to challenge the findings made by so many noble Lords who were listed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He made the list seem very impressive. It was very impressive. A great deal of wisdom and experience was in the Committee. We had a debate afterwards: I was there and I spoke, and I remember it. But this Bill has been described as a ragbag. It seems to me more like a consolidation Bill. I have always understood—and there are three ex-Lord Chancellors in the House who will be able to contradict me—that this kind of Bill consolidated Acts of Parliament—not case law, not decisions of the courts, even of the Court of Parliament in the kind of way in which this matter was considered. It seems to me wrong that a controversial matter should be included in a Bill of this kind. If I am not right in that there are plenty of people here who can put me right.
4.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that I will deal with that point first. It
730
is not a Consolidation Bill; it is a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill—
LORD MOYNE: With respect—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Forgive me, but it is not a Consolidation Bill; it is a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill. If I may further comfort my noble friend—it is partly my fault—when I was moving that the House should resolve itself into a Committee I should have uttered certain ritual words which have been agreed upon by somebody or other and which I will now utter, if I may, at an inappropriate place. I should have said: "I should inform the House that this is a Bill prepared by the Law Commission to promote the reform of the Statute Law by the repeal, in accordance with Law Commission recommendation, of certain enactments which, except in so far as their effect is preserved, are no longer of practical utility". In this case the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills made five Amendments to the Bill and were of opinion that, apart from the effect upon certain enactments of those Amendments, the remaining enactments proposed in the Schedule to the Bill for repeal were obsolete, spent, unnecessary, superseded or no longer of practical utility; and in consequence they approved the repeal of those enactments. The Committee decided by a majority—which was nine to one—to include the repeals made by Part I of the Schedule to the Bill.
I now come to the matter—because it is there and because it is the matter we are now discussing—contained in the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. It is not a Consolidation Bill, it is a Bill with the characteristics which I have just described. I am sure that the whole Committee will feel nothing but admiration for the way in which my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard has discharged his honourable obligation to his fellow Irish Peers, both now and also on previous occasions. They will also recognise that nothing could be more disinterested on his part, since though he possesses, if I am not mistaken, two Irish Viscountcies and two Irish Baronies, his tenure in this House is by secure possession of a United Kingdom Peerage of ancient right and he is therefore almost a House of Lords in himself.

731
I must join with other noble Lords—in spite of the persuasion of my noble friend Lord Moyne and my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery—in regretting that I cannot yield to the arguments. Since the matter is bound to cause disappointment to those who hold Irish, but not United Kingdom, English or Scottish Peerages. I feel that I should give my reasons in detail. I seems to me that the arguments are overwhelming. If I may just deal with the one point put by my noble friend Lord Colyton. which I thought was answered adequately by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, it really must be the case that if it can be established, both as a matter of politics and as a matter of law, that there is nothing left in the enactments proposed to be repealed, they are properly put in the Schedule to a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill as being obsolete, spent, unnecessary and of no practical utility at all at the present day.
I hope that nothing I say will be construed as in any way disrespectful of Irish Peers. We have a number of them in this House. En addition to my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees, they include the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and many others. They are a most estimable body of men, but not all estimable men a re entitled to be in, or to elect representatives to this House as Peers of Parliament, and it is that question that we are now considering. Of course, as my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has reminded the Committee. Irish Peers, like the Scottish Peers, were deprived by the relevant Acts of Union of any effective right to sit in their own Parliaments, which originally were separate Parliaments. Instead, they were given the right in each case to elect representative Peers to the United Kingdom Parliament. In the case of a Scottish Peer, it will be remembered that this election took place every Parliament, but in the case of the Irish Peers the elections took place for life. By contrast, the Irish Peers could be elected to the House of Commons—which is contrary to what the noble and learned Lord. Lord Gardiner, said, I think per incuriaim —although not for Irish constituencies and they were constantly so elected. On the other hand, they did not have the right to vote in this Parliament unless by
732
a curious paradox they were actually elected as Members of the House of Commons when they did have the vote.
Even this was conceded to them in 1963 when they were made the equivalent of commoners for all purposes. The reason why in 1963 they were made the equivalent of commoners for all purposes was precisely because Parliament, having discussed the matter in 1963, came to the conclusion that their right to elect representatives did not exist. That is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was saying. The reason why it did not exist was as follows: the machinery for election depended in practice upon the existence of the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland and some other offices, one of which the noble and learned Lord referred to. Since these Offices were abolished by the Treaty which brought the Irish Free State into existence no elections have taken place.
The reason in fact why no elections have taken place is not a coincidence by any possible chance. It was not an act of omission on the part of the framers of the Treaty; it was always intended that the existing representative Peers should be allowed to continue so long as they lived and no more representatives should be elected. I well remember my father, who was Attorney General at the time the Irish Treaty was passed, explaining this to me in clear language. He said that the understanding was that the Irish representatives would die out in course of time and it was deliberately not thought suitable that the Peerage of a United Ireland should continue to be represented as such after the creation of the Irish Free State. He went on to explain to me, many years ago, that Northern Ireland remained a part of the United Kingdom, but representation in the Upper House of this Parliament could be catered for by United Kingdom Peerages; and that there were two Houses in the Stormont Parliament, and the House of Commons here, in which Irish Peers could sit. That is a fact. In fact no new Irish Peers did sit, and in 1961 the last Irish Peer died out.
Lest anyone should think that my recollection of what my father told me as a boy is, by some means, mistaken, let me tell the Committee what I think has not hitherto been published or known, that he did give an Opinion as a Law

733
Officer, with Sir Thomas Inskip—he was Attorney General—on this very point. It is not without significance that he gave an opinion as a Law Officer on this very point in 1925, the year after the Maugham /Greene Opinion. I have been at pains to secure that opinion. It is quite clear, although it is not referred to by name in the case to counsel, that every argument in the Maugham /Greene Opinion is reproduced for his and for the Solicitor General's consideration. It was perfectly before him, and the Solicitor General, in 1925. He was asked a number of questions—and as it is a Law Officer's Opinion I am entitled to refer to it—the first of which was: are the provisions of the Act of Union relating to representative Peers of Ireland repealed or otherwise materially affected by the legislation creating, and consequent upon the creation, of the Irish Free State? Then there were a number of other questions which they were asked.
In answer to that question, he and the Solicitor General used this unequivocal language:
"Our answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The constitution of the Irish Free State as a self-governing Dominion is in our opinion inconsistent with the continued right of the Irish Peers to be represented in the Imperial Parliament; and the destruction of the machinery requisite for the election of such Peers is in our opinion a sufficient indication that Parliament, in setting up the Irish Free State, regarded the right of Ireland to representation in the House of Lords as determined. The right given to Northern Ireland to vote herself out of the Free State does not give her a right to be represented in the House of Lords: that right was not one conferred by the Act of 1920 on Northern or Southern Ireland, and further there is no such dignity as a Peerage of Northern Ireland."
Nothing could be more unequivocal than that. It was the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in 1925, on a case which deliberately reproduced the substance of the Greene/Maugham opinion, which was effectively demolished at rather greater length than I have wearied the Committee by giving. That was as long ago as 1925. The idea that we are abolishing any right of anybody to-day is something which cannot bear the smallest scrutiny.
The House has been reminded of the many occasions since then on which this same right has been put forward, after it had been disposed of completely by the Law Officers of the Crown in 1925. It
734
was raised by the Joint Select Committee on House of Lords Reform, and they recommended that no renewal of the right to elect Representative Peers of Ireland should be made. The Peerage Act 1963 put the Peers of Ireland on the same footing as commoners in this country, so that they could vote for the House of Commons, unlike ourselves, and could sit in the House of Commons, unlike ourselves, precisely on the ground that the right of election of Representative Peers had by that time disappeared.
In 1965 came the Petition of the noble Earl, Lord Antrim, on behalf of the Irish Peers, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has referred. The matter was gone into at length in exhaustive arguments by counsel in front of a Committee as dignified and as representative as a Committee could well be imagined to be, containing five Law Lords, an ex-Prime Minister, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and almost everybody of account in the House at that time. That Committee came unanimously to the same conclusion, reported that this right had been extinguished; and that opinion was endorsed by the House by Resolution, after debate. What there is left to talk about, I really do not know. This is a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill, and the purpose of the Bill is to get rid of enactments which no longer have any practical utility at all and I should think that this was as clear an example as exists of such an Act, except perhaps the Act to pay annuities to dependent Royalty, referred to by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery.
LORD MOYNE: My Lords, perhaps my noble and learned friend, before he sits down, would tell the House how it is that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills have amended a Bill, which he has told us is not a Consolidation Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is one of the functions of the Joint Committee, conferred on them by Parliament. They have the function of considering Statute Law (Repeal) Bills as well as Consolidation Bills.
5.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I reply to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who asked why the opinion of Lords Maugham and Greene was not

735
put before the Committee for Privileges by the Irish Peers. The reason is that by some extraordinary oversight this was overlooked. I know that this sounds typically Irish again. This oversight was a most unfortunate one. That is why I asked in the debate, when the House was asked to receive the Report, that the Committee should go back again and consider the Maugham/Greene opinion. The failure to put before the Committee the Maugham /Greene opinion I was entirely due to an oversight, and I admit that it was rather an extraordinary oversight. What worries Irish Peers is that not all lawyers agree about the subject. If they were all agreed, we should be quite happy.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I say to my noble friend that although I know that in 1924 two very distinguished lawyers gave another opinion, I do not know anyone who has expressed one since?
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I have one here, that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, agreed with the conclusions of the Committee, but, as so often happens, for reasons which differed.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: That sounds even more Irish.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the noble Viscount will forgive me, what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, said was that he agreed with the Report, which had in it this sentence:
" The right of election of Irish representative peers no longer exists."
It cannot be plainer than that, and that is what we are discussing.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord also said:
" I confess to some reluctance in holding that an Act of such constitutional significance as the Union of Ireland Act is subject to the doctrine of implied repeal or of obsolescence."
I agree that the noble and learned Lord eventually came round to the conclusion of the Committee. But that is the way of lawyers.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which I think has been worth while. If I may get away for a moment completely from the legal aspect, it seems to me extraordinary that we have coming to this House every year, like salmon coming up the river in spring, waves of Life Peers. I think that here we could have a little element of democracy. We have a large group of Irish Peers, many of whom are eminent men—great soldiers, sailors and airmen, authors: their ramifications are immense—and I cannot see that there would be anything wrong in allowing them to elect a few of their number to sit in your Lordships' House instead of having Peers who are always appointed by the patronage of a Prime Minister. I agree that this has nothing to do with my Amendment, but I should like to make the point. I do not like to waste the time of the House and the time of the officials of the House, and even the paper that the Division Lists are written on. Therefore, with extreme reluctance—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Do not withdraw!
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: As I have some support, I will not withdraw my Amendment.
5.9 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 100.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Henley,L.

Moyne,L.

Arran,E

Lauderdale, E.

Reigate, L.

Brockway, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.[Teller.]

Swansea, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.[Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, I

Courtown, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst, E.

Eccles, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Amory, V.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Ogmore, L.

Ardwick, L

Ferrier, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchic-Calder, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Barnby. I.,

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Belsttad, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Just, L.

Beswick, L.

Grimston, of Westbury, L.

Salisbury, M.

Birk, Bs.

Hacking, L.

Sandford, L.

Black ford, L.

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

Sempill, Ly.

Bourne, L.

Shackleton, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hankey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hives, L.

Somers, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hood, V.

Sorensen, L.

Burntwood, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Stamp, L.

Carrington, L.

Hoy, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Champion. L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Colgrain, L.

Ilford, L.

Strang, L.

Collison, L.

Janner, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Colyton, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathcarron, L.

Conesford, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Leatherland, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Craigavon, V.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Teviot, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Teynham, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovat, L.

Vivian, L.

De Clifford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Derwent, L.

Milverton, L.

Willis, L.

Diamond, L.

Molson, L.

Wise, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Woolley, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Morrison, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

POLISH WAR PRISONERS: MASS MURDER IN RUSSIA
5.17 p.m.
LORD BARNBY LORD BARNBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now support an effort to secure pronouncement establishing beyond contention the authorship of the mass murder of over 4,000 Polish officer prisoners of war in the Katyn Forest near Smolensk, Russia, in the spring of 1940, and bring to light the disappearance without trace of a further 10,000 Polish officers interned in 1939 in the Soviet camps of Ostashkow and Starobielsk. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a curious coincidence of Parliamentary Orders that two consecutive matters of business should each refer to countries which are
738
alleged to be in the unfortunate position of being oppressed. With the indulgence of the House, I would say that having heard the discussion on the previous Bill I am reminded that I happen to be among the few in this House who actually sat in another place with the Irish, and tonight I heard the familiar talk of the "oppression" by Britain of another country. Perhaps I might tell the House with regard to my Motion that the first time I visited Poland was when she was under the oppression of a foreign country, as the Congress of Poland was still under the subjection of Russia.
To turn to my Question, it has of course no Party partisan aspect. In that way, it is the more pleasing to put forward. I seek to report a gap in history, in the hope that there might be put in motion an exploration through some recognised international authority which will correct the omission. It will be remembered that Napoleon's early victories were achieved with relatively small forces—Marengo with 23,000 and Austerlitz with 73,000. How different from the vast numbers mobilised by whole nations in the last War! But it is with

739
regard to the relationship of those numbers that the 200,000-odd military prisoners who fell into the hands of Russia were great in volume compared to the forces with which Napoleon achieved so much.
It is right that I should try to recapitulate some events of history. It will be remembered that in the spring of 1939 Britain signed an agreement with Poland that she would go to Poland's aid if she were attacked. The Germans attacked Poland on September 1, 1939. We declared war on Germany. The German armies had the advantage of the persuasion of Britain in those difficult days of August, 1939, to delay mobilisation in the hope of avoiding a situation. I remember it well, because I was in the South of Poland at that time. I took a train to Warsaw the next day, as a result of a conversation with our Ambassador, Sir Nevile Henderson, and heard from him a conversation that he had had the day before with Goering: and I was curious, as other noble Lords would have been, as to the prospects of peace or war.
Anyhow, the Germans had attacked. Their thrust was strong, and they pushed back the Polish armies. As your Lordships will remember, on the 17th of that month the Russians attacked from the East, and under the pressure from East and West the Polish armies were quickly overrun. Poland was divided almost equally between Russia and Germany by the Ribbentrop-Molotov line. The Germans exercised their power to remove some 1½ million Poles to the extreme East, well into Russia.
Meanwhile, these Polish military prisoners had also been moved to camps well inside Russia. But, of these prisoners, some 15,000 officers were removed to three special, known camps. They were there sifted. Some 500, it is understood, yielded to the temptation of collaboration with Communism, and were appropriately employed. Of the remainder, some 4,500 were removed to the camp at Katyn, near Smolensk, in Russia. Nothing was ever heard of those men again after April, 1940. It should be remembered that Russia was then at peace. We should remember, too, that British officers, prisoners of war in the last war, had access to the International
740
Red Cross, and they had contact with home. No such privileges were ever afforded to those 4,500 men, about whom nothing more was ever heard. That is why I think it is right that there should be an appropriate arrangement for the establishment of an iron-clad prisonerof-war protection agreement aiming at effectiveness far beyond that provided by the rules of the Geneva Convention of August, 1949.
I return to the course of events. Germany attacked Russia on July 22, 1941, also in defiance of treaties. The German armies advanced rapidly, causing fear in Russia of how serious the position might be. Russia decided to make a treaty with Poland, who by then had a Government resident in London, and General Anders, released from Lubianka Prison and commissioned to raise an army, naturally asked to get the officers who had been captured, many of whom were known to him personally. Excuses were made, and no officers were produced. General Anders proceeded with the mobilisation of what forces he could. Those were the armies that fought so gallantly with us at Monte Cassino and elsewhere throughout the world, adding to the effective support given by the Polish Air Force in the Battle of Britain, where I understand they had the highest proportion of "kills". So we should keep in correct perspective the gallant support that we had for the Allied cause from the Polish Army.
In April, 1943, Germany had been in possession for some eighteen months of big areas of Russia, which included that in which was situated the Forest of Katyn, near where these prisoners had been. They began to dig, and they discovered the graves of a great number of Polish officers. The Germans invited the International Red Cross to investigate. The Russians refused to agree. The Germans then decided that they would appoint an international medical commission—this was in 1943—which was accorded every opportunity of access and research, and made an impressive report. At this stage, I would remind your Lordships that there exist two excellent books on this subject: one is entitled Katyn, by Louis Fitzgibbon, and the other, Death in the Forest, by J. F. Zaviodny.
I would wish to expound at greater length, but time does not permit. Other

741
speakers will follow, and I hope that reference will be made to points with which I shall not deal, other than to tabulate them. There are the report of the international medical commission which the Germans appointed; the sequence at Nuremberg of the charges; the unreserved findings of the U.S.A. Congressional Committee in 1952; and the recent convincing B.B.C. documentary film. I did not myself see the film, but I understand that it was a very good impartial presentation of the facts; it was historical and effective in its presentation. Why did the Soviets refuse to agree to an International Red Cross investigation? Lastly, where were the officers in 1941 that Anders sought to man the force which he raised in Russia and with which he proceeded to the Allied front? There has been a complete conspiracy of silence. There is a blank in history as to the authorship of this odious crime. There has been much talk in other circles of our obligation, the British obligation for the respect of international morality. There are other concurrent contemporary topics. I feel this is one which justifies ourselves and the other Allies examining our consciences.
If I may be pardoned for striking a personal note, I speak on this matter because between the wars I visited the then Polish Independent Republic four or five times a year and travelled widely. I knew at that time a good deal about Poland and I was astonished, as all noble Lords would have been had they been there, at the achievements of Poland in the integration in a short time of the currency. weights and measures and legal system. Those three systems were merged into one as a result of the fusing together of the areas occupied by Russia, Austria and Germany.
A similar Motion to this one, with over 180 signatures to it, is down for debate in another place. I understand that steps are being taken to put this matter on the agenda of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, or before the General Assembly of the United Nations which next meets in September. It will be thought by many: why raise this subject now so long after its occurrence? My Lords, what are the thoughts of the relatives of those murdered men and all the other Poles who died in the Allied
742
Cause in the last war? No indemnification was every received by any of them. Now the relatives of those living in our country, ageing, many in dire poverty, believe that their feelings would receive some balm if they could only be assured as to what had happened and what was the fate of these people. Many of them are living with us in an alien country without normal contact with their own people.
My Lords, I have tried to approach this question with a fairness of mind and a moderation of language. But I do so with the feelings of the deepest emotion. I have tried to compress my remarks into a reasonable time, but I have sought to get the matter into focus. I am sure that these remarks will be amplified by succeeding speakers much more eloquently and clearly than I can do. In conclusion, with all sincerity, I would urge that the Minister in reply not only offers sympathy, but also the prospect of some action of an effective character. I beg to ask the Question.
5.36 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, when I examined the list of speakers earlier this afternoon I learned that it was the intention of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, to follow the noble Lord. Lord Barnby. I have since received an intimation that the noble Marquess prefers to defer his observations until later in the debate. It would have been a high distinction to follow the noble Marquess because, if nobody else in your Lordships' House is familiar with the subject, he was at the time in question, in 1939, occupying an honourable position in His Majesty's Government. Therefore he will speak with expertise, with a knowledge of the subject which I cannot claim to possess.
May I begin by offering congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, for his exposition. He has coupled logic, a series of facts, with a quite creditable and justifiable emotion in the circumstances. I offer my congratulations to him. In the course of the week questions have been asked about whether this debate was necessary: Why delve into history? It is all of the past. Why refer to old complaints, sores and the like? It is singular that such questions should have

743
been asked because preceding this debate there was another in which we discovered that in 1925 it was decided by a Privileges Committee of your Lordships' House that only a certain number of Irish Peers were entitled to be represented in this Assembly. In 1925 the matter was settled. That was just as remote—even more remote—than the incidents which form the subject of this debate. We are entitled—completely justified—to delve into the history of this sordid and squalid affair.
In 1939 war broke out; the Nazis invaded Poland. They bombed Warsaw and practically destroyed it. Almost simultaneously the Russians, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to invade Poland. As the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, stated in the course of his observations, we were, so far as Russia was concerned, at peace. We had declared war because of the invasion by the Nazis of Poland. Russia was at peace. Nevertheless, after the Nazis had bombed Warsaw and had engaged in wholesale destruction, Russia invaded Poland. The question may be asked: Why did they invade Poland; why did they carve Poland up along with the Nazis? Why did they seek to obtain as much loot as possible? And, moreover, why did they take from Poland a large number of officers and men of the Polish Army and deport them forcibly to Russia? The reason is best known to themselves; these officers and men were never heard of again. This is a justifiable Question, even although the matter seems remote and no longer topical.
Let me recount a personal incident which has some bearing on this subject, but I preface my observation by asking a question. Why was it—perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, could respond in the course of his remarks later on—that the Foreign Office at the time, although it must undoubtedly have been aware of what happened, never said a word about it; appeared to take no appropriate action? I can recall Questions asked in the other House on the subject. Rumours were floating around. No facts were available to honourable Members in the other place. But the Foreign Office must undoubtedly have been aware, because of the rumours that were current, that something of the kind,
744
on which the rumours were based, had been operating.
At just about that time I was asked to pay a visit to the Russian Embassy when Maisky was the Soviet Ambassador. Maisky was a friend of the United Kingdom. I had gone at his own request to talk with him about the possibility of Russia's entering the war on the side of the Allies. Noble Lords may wonder why I should have been consulted by Maisky. It so happened, although some of my colleagues decided to join Winston Churchill in the Coalition Government, that I refused the invitation, and so I found myself on the Opposition Bench, not the official Opposition Leader, but unofficial—if noble Lords prefer it, self-appointed. Maisky asked me to come and meet him. His reply to my question, whether Russia intended to enter the war on the side of the Allies, evoked a rather peculiar reply. He did not reply directly, but said, "Britain will not be defeated." I remember that remark vividly. So far as Maisky was concerned, he was on our side.
I repeat the question: If the Foreign Office were aware of what was happening in Poland, why were the facts not exposed? It may be because the Foreign Office diplomatically, and probably rightly in the circumstances, had no desire to offend Russia, in the hope that Russia would join with the Allies against the Nazis, and in the circumstances that would be regarded as a correct posture. I certainly at the time would not have objected to it because, like others in the other place, I wished for the successful prosecution of the war against the Nazis. It is remarkable how these events have been shrouded in obscurity, despite several commissions of inquiry. For example, there was the United States Congress Commission of Inquiry, when it was stated that there was not a scintilla (I am quoting accurately from the Report itself) of evidence which could refute the allegations and the rumours about the destruction wrought by the Russians when they invaded Poland and deported officers and men.
There was another inquiry. I am not certain whether it was of an international character: I think it was the International Red Cross. They engaged in an inquiry and were satisfied that there was truth in the rumours connected with

745
the allegations about the massacre of officers and men—the number stated at the time was something like 15,000. Even Winston Churchill made no reference to the subject, except in relation to a controversy in which he engaged with Stalin at the end of 1945 when they were discussing what was to happen about the carving up of Poland and the frontiers. The references are contained in the Sixth Volume, 29th chapter, of World War, for which Churchill is responsible.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend —did he mean 1944 or 1945?
LORD SHINWELL: 1945.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: 1945? But Churchill was not in office at the end of 1945.
LORD SHINWELL: No, my Lords; I am wrong. I have the dates wrong. It was immediately after the war. Churchill was engaged in controversy on what was to happen about Poland. This is contained in the reference I have just mentioned. Perhaps my noble friend would care to consult the volume in the Library, and there he will see the actual statement made by Churchill about the disputes with Stalin. It was not about the events which have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, which occurred in 1939 and the year following. This was in connection with an allegation about a smaller number of officers who had been captured by the Russians and massacred. Churchill asked Stalin whether anything could be done in order to prevent happenings of that kind from recurring. Stalin absolutely refused, and in point of fact, according to Churchill's reference in the volume which I have just mentioned, Stalin went so far as to declare these officers as revisionists who were trying to defeat the aims of the Soviet Union on behalf of, presumably, so-called reactionaries. This is part of the story: the rumours in 1939 and in 1940, and then a similar event when Churchill came to office and engaged in controversy with Stalin on a similar subject but of course concerning fewer men.
It may be argued that we ought to be extremely careful not to engage in disputation of this kind which might offend the Russians. I have a reply to that.
746
We are a small country, Russia is a big country. Militarily we are not as strong as Russia, but that is no reason why we should not seek to rectify incidents mentioned in this debate. It may also be argued that in Poland at the present time they have been somewhat regardless of minority interests, and therefore although Poland was an ally of ours during the war (so far as it was possible to be an ally under General Anders, who was operating in this country on behalf of the Polish exiles) we ought to be extremely careful not to offend the Russians. But, after all, we are concerned with principles. We are concerned with the question of whether there should be an exposure of those events, whether there should be some rectification, some justification, some compensation— I am not speaking financially, because most of those people have died. Probably some of their successors are still alive and are in this country or elsewhere, but it is not a question of financial compensation. It is a matter of an inquiry which may afford consolation for those events, and, in the circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was justified in raising this topic.
I do not want to proceed any further than that, except to repeat that, so far as I know, no responsible person—the Prime Minister or Lloyd George, for example—took any action in the matter. A reference is made to Lloyd George in the book by Frank Owen The Tempestuous Journey which must he familiar to noble Lords, in which he refers in a casual fashion to the rumours that were current in 1939; but Lloyd George took no action in the matter. Winston Churchill took no action in the matter, although he must have known what was happening. The Foreign Office must have been aware. I am not quite sure who was Foreign Secretary at the time, whether it was Lord Halifax or Sir Anthony Eden (now Lord Avon)—perhaps the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, will be able to tell us who was Foreign Secretary at the time. At any rate no prominent person and nobody in the Foreign Office raised the issue, presumably because they dared not offend the Russians.
It may be said even now that we must not offend the Russians. I do not want to offend the Russians or anybody else,

747
but I want what the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is anxious about: that there should be an exposure of what happened, so that the world should know who was responsible for those events. That is the reason why the noble Lord has asked this Question; whether the Government can respond by appointing a Commission is a matter for them to decide. My own impression is that they will refuse, presumably because Russia is a strong country militarily and we must be extremely careful, we must be prudent, we must be cautious.
I should like to end by saying one thing on the ideological issue. I am not concerned about Russian ideology for Russia and the Russian people, but I condemn Russian ideology which is used as propaganda in all parts of the world for subversive reasons. If for no other reason than that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, was justified in raising this issue, and the very least that the Government can do is to endeavour to find out the facts of this squalid affair, so that history can place them on record. They were based on rumours at the time, but rumours which obviously had an element of truth. I support the noble Lord, Lord Barnby.
5.54 p.m.
THE EARL or DUNDEE: My Lords, the massacre of Katyn took place a long time ago, probably in the spring of 1944, and if we are asked, as the noble Lord who has just spoken thought we might be asked, what good purpose can now be served by raking up this 3I-year-old atrocity in a world where violence and cruelty seem to be becoming almost universal, I think the right answer is that we should try to put ourselves in the position of a near relation of any one of those Polish soldiers who, after having fought in vain for his country and after being held for seven months in a prison camp, was then slaughtered, together with 4,000 of his comrades, and buried secretly in the neighbourhood of the camp.
A great many of the families of these men are now living in this country. You would not feel, if you were one of them, that it made very much difference to your son or your brother or your husband or your friend whether he was murdered by the Russians or by the Germans, but
748
I think it would seem important to you that history should seek to tell the truth about his death. I am sure that history makes a great many mistakes, and even in the most liberal society where freedom of speech and freedom of writing and freedom of research are all fully permitted the best historians may sometimes be deceived by the false propaganda of an earlier age, or even of their own age. If Germany had won the last war school children in many civilised countries would have been taught a version of history which would have been prescribed by Dr. Goebbels, and some of it might never have been unlearned.
When the news of the discovery of the dead bodies at Katyn was published in the latter part of the war, in 1943 or 1944, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was a Member of another place. We had to choose between two contradictory statements, one by a Communist Government, another by a Nazi Government, both based on political philosophies which shamelessly subordinate truth to expediency. But I think the noble Lord will bear me out when I say that my recollection is that at that time, although the Germans were our enemies and although the Russians were our allies, nobody in Parliament had the slightest doubt that the Russian version of the affair was a totally false fabrication.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that was not because of Nazi propaganda; it was, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has mentioned, mainly because of the evidence of the International Red Cross, who had examined the circumstances on the spot.
Since then I think it has always been recognised in this country that these were the facts, and I doubt whether my noble friend Lord Barnby would have troubled to raise the question now if it had not been that one of the directors of the B.B.C. who was going to make an official visit to Poland had his visit cancelled the other day by the Polish Government because of a documentary film about Katyn which had been shown on B.B.C.2. We know very well how extremely offensive the dissemination of false history can be. We have ourselves seen a citizen of a country which is now free, the German Hockhuth, publishing

749
the most inexcusable libels about both Sir Winston Churchill and Pope Pius XII, and some of them I think have appeared on the stage and on the screen. Of course we can understand if young Polish Communists have been officially taught and indoctrinated with a falsehood about the slaughter of their fellow countrymen at Katyn, how they may be offended when they hear the truth which they have been taught to regard as a falsehood.
My noble friend Lord Barnby asks in this Question for a pronouncement which will put the facts beyond contention. When he says "beyond contention", I take it he means beyond reasonable doubt in a country where men are free to examine the historical evidence, which I am afraid does not apply to the inhabitants of Communist countries. If we were to make such a pronouncement, accompanied by hostile criticism of Communist Governments for suppressing the truth, I would say that such criticism might only have the effect of delaying the time, if the time ever conies, when writers in Communist countries may begin to be allowed some degree of intellectual freedom. But I think it could do no harm if we were to publish, not in any provocative manner but in a purely objective and rational context, without any moral overtones, a true summary of the facts about this unhappy story of Katyn. in the interests of true history and for the sake of the exiled families of those murdered men who once helped us to fight for the freedom of the world but whose own country has lost its freedom in doing so.
6.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, 1 have waited 30 years for this day; I have waited for an inquiry preferably by the United Nations, and for a straight answer by a British Government, which I confidently expect, on the simple question as to "who done it?" Meanwhile, history has been traduced and with the deliberate connivance of successive British Administrations, for, my Lords, it is and always has been common knowledge in the Foreign Office that Katyn was the act of the Russians and not the Germans. I am prepared to believe anything bad about the Nazis between 1939 and 1945, and indeed I would draw a sharp distinction between German murders and Russian murders; the one, I should like to suggest,
750
deliberate, administrative, cold-blooded, sadistic; the other inefficient, haphazard and in some ways comparable to the murders of Shin Fein. But whether we like it or not, this odious crime at least is not attributable to our German friends and allies but to our comrades of yesteryear.
I do not propose to go into the evidence; it has been ably presented by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I have only one small piece to add to the jigsaw. In 1943, I was working closely with the Foreign Office news department. Its head, Sir William Ridsdale, had personal access to the Foreign Secretary, and his job was to give information and background guidance to the diplomatic correspondents of the British Press, information which those distinguished men used with all the care and discretion which was enjoined on them. At the time of the discovery of the Katyn graves, I distinctly remember Sir William telling his conference of officials that though there was little doubt that this was the deed of the Russians, it was regarded by the War Cabinet as highly dangerous to put the blame where it properly lay. I believe that Mr. Iverach McDonald, then Diplomatic Correspondent of The Times and Mr. Richard Scott, then a member of the department and now Foreign Editor of the Guardian, were concerned and would confirm it.
I understand this blurring of the truth at the time; I understood it then and I understand it now. To blame the Russians might have meant a break of the Alliance and even losing the war. We were forced to accept this, together with other odious necessities. For instance, we were forced to declare war on Finland to appease the Russians. Finland which we had tried to defend in the winter of 1939 with a voluntary brigade. The Americans, who have a soft spot for Finland, perhaps because it was the only country to repay its First World War debts, were furious with us. But I believe we were right; quite simply, we had no alternative. After the war, too, it could be and was agreed that in our desire to keep on terms with the U.S.S.R. at any price it would be impolitic to take the skeletons out of the cupboard. Hence the persistent refusal of successive

751
Governments to face the issue, to set up, for instance, the inquiry demanded by the late Professor Sir Douglas Savory and over 100 members of the other place; hence the deliberate concealment of what those Governments knew and this Government know to be the truth.
But there can surely be no justification to-day for keeping silence. There is no further reason to appease the Russians. "Who's afraid of the big bad wolf?" There is no reason for falsifying history. Over the years history can all too easily become mythology. Who knows but that perhaps one day the vile story of Sir Winston Churchill's responsibility for the death of General Sikorsky may not come to be accepted as at least a possibility?
There is only one country which we in Britain cannot look squarely in the face, and that is Poland. In 1939 we guaranteed her territorial integrity. To-day our guarantee remains unfulfilled, our pledge broken. The Poles are forgiving and realistic; they do not expect us to honour our undertaking. But they fought at our side for just that reason. They realise that to do so would mean war against Soviet Russia, and that is totally impossible. But I repeat: towards Poland and the Poles we must have a had conscience, for we broke faith. Should we not do what lies within our power to redeem our national honour? We cannot give Poland back her freedom. Should we not at least give her back her history?
6.8 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to support, briefly, for there are others who have to speak, but most sincerely, what has been so well said this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and those other noble Lords who have spoken. I suppose none of the many horrible things which were done in the last Great War have more appalled the conscience of humanity than the Katyn massacres. The killing of 4,000 officers, and almost certainly 10,000 more, would in any case be a dreadful thing, but what made it so specially shocking was the fact that it appears to have been done not in hot blood, not even in revenge, though that would have been bad enough, but quite deliberately in cold blood as an act of policy, to remove from Poland her
752
natural leaders and maim her, if possible, for ever. That it utterly failed in these objects because of the unvanquished spirit of the Polish nation does not make it any the less atrocious. It remains an indelible stain on the nation responsible, and if such a crime is never to be perpetrated again, it seems to me of the first importance that the guilt should be nailed down, once and for all, officially, where it belongs. The facts, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has said, are now pretty well known, and that should not be an impossible task.
I am not going into the question of what we should have done or should not have done in the past, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, attached so much importance. I believe that now to be a sterile inquiry. I am concerned more with what is, I believe, to be the true purpose of this Motion, and it is surely this: what should we do now? I would say that I believe it is our duty to the Polish people, who have fought so heroically and so tragically on our side in that Great War, that this matter should be finally cleared up. I hope that it will be possible for the Government, in their reply, to make it clear once and for all. and in no uncertain fashion, that that also is their view.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCH LEY: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to hear that, because so many of my noble friends have said what I had intended to say, I have cut my speech in half. I want to take a slightly different aspect, in that Poland was, and is, the geopolitical heartland of Europe, and every struggle has gone over or through Poland. Every time she has been put down she has been resurrected, and I am sure she will be once again.
Towards the end of the war I was in Palestine and used to go up to the border of Persia to meet the Polish troops coming out of Russia on to our side, as it were, and one always noticed the shortage of the middle rank officers. They were simply not there. There were some very young and some very old, but in the main there were not sufficient officers of any sort coming out of Russia, through Persia, into Palestine to take part in the rest of the war. When General Anders was released from Lubianka to form the Polish Army

753
to fight with the Russians and the West, he asked, "Where are the missing 15,000 officers?". He knew that there were 15.000 officers missing altogether. We now know, both from the evidence of a doctors' commission, which was international, and from a British officer and a United States officer who were in a German prisoner-of-war camp and were allowed to go to see that at least the 4,500 were killed—murdered, as several of my noble friends have said, in cold blood. Worse still, from the evidence, they were probably shot at close range from the back, falling into the graves they had probably had to dig themselves. This is known, but has never been really fairly and properly put. To do this in war, when you have been at peace with that nation and you want them to fight on your side, is almost inconceivable; but, as my noble friend Lord Salisbury said, it was cold policy to stop the future leaders of the Polish nation—those who would be leading Poland now had it not been for this ghastly act of inhumanity.
We owe a debt of honour to the Polish people, even to those in Poland now who are free to hear the truth. I want to add that not only do we owe a debt of honour, we owe a debt to truth. The United States of America has admitted some of the terrible things that have happened with some of her troops in Vietnam, has "come clean" and has charged the people concerned. Why not have the truth on this matter? We know what happened in Czechoslovakia, and we know what happened a little further back in Hungary. It is the truth that we ought to have, and truth has no deadline.
6.16 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, without adding unduly to this debate, I should like to say a few words about this Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, because I was First Secretary of the British Embassy in Poland before the war; I was a diplomatic liaison officer with the Poles in Rumania, and afterwards in Iran, when General Anders and his Polish Army, and about 70,000 civilians came out at rather short notice—may I say, one of the miracles of our century—and I was again Counsellor in Poland at our Embassy in Warsaw after the war. After that I was head of the Northern Department, and had responssibility at departmental level for Anglo
Vol. 320
754
Polish relations, including the political problems of demobilising the Polish Army in the West. Afterwards I was Minister in Hungary, and I know, to my cost, what living under the N.K.V.D. in the last years of Stalin's life was like.
I cannot echo too strongly what has been said about the appalling, hideous massacre at Katyn. There is no doubt that it really is a very shocking crime, and if the facts were to come out in an absolutely incontestable form, nobody would be more glad than I. I should like to say that the file of the German Inquiry did, as a matter of fact, pass through my hands at one time, and I had the opportunity to look through it carefully. The date at which this massacre took place has always been slightly difficult to identify with absolute clarity. In actual fact, it depends largely on the diaries found in the pockets of the dead men. I can confirm what the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley said, that these men were shot in the back of the head, which was a practice unfortunately current on both sides of that terrible front.
The dates of the entries in the diaries all end in about March and April 1940; but as the evidence was released by the Germans in 1943, it is incredible that they would have allowed any diaries to survive which had an entry of a subsequent date. Therefore, one has to say that there is a conceivable residual doubt on this subject. I am not in any very great doubt myself, I am afraid, as to where the blame lay. I only say that if you want legal evidence, there is a legitimate residual doubt, and I do not think that it has been possible to clear it up on the evidence which has hitherto been released.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, would it have been possible to fabricate a diary which came to an end in March, 1940, with all the rest of the diary blank?
LORD HANKEY: No, my Lords; I do not think it would. I have seen photographs of the entries in the diaries; they were incontestably genuine. I personally think that the evidence points strongly to the fact that these men lost their lives in April, 1940; but all I say is that the Nazis were consummate liars and when they brought out a lot of evidence of this sort it was hard to know

755
exactly what to believe. It was difficult for the Foreign Office at that time—faced as they were with the difficulty of encouraging the Russians to go on fighting, although we were not in a position to launch the Second Front which they demanded with such insistence—to take this matter up on evidence released by the Germans. I do not think it is true that the Foreign Office suppressed the evidence. One noble Lord suggested that, but I do not think that is true. I was not in the Northern Department at the time, but I do not think the Foreign Office ever suppressed evidence.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, I am very sorry. I speak only for the official and not for the Ministerial level. But it was the guidance given out by the News Department, which I am sure the noble Lord respects as much as I do, that the Foreign Office was firmly convinced that it was a Russian crime and not a German crime. But it was impolitic to say so, and I personally agreed with them at the time. Mr. Iverach McDonald, now assistant Editor of The Times and then diplomatic correspondent of The Times, and Mr. Richard Scott, of the Guardian, would confirm that that was the guidance given to us.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I am not disagreeing with the noble Earl, and I think he is quite right. I think his remarks about what Sir William Ridsdale said were extremely significant and very interesting, and I share the same view. In fact I thought I was agreeing with him. All I am saying is that the Foreign Office did not conceal this. They did not think they had absolutely cast-iron evidence; and, anyhow, even if they had, they would not have thought it very politic to release the evidence at a time when the issues of war were so very great. Nor would the Foreign Office at any time—and nor should any of us—be greatly impressed by crocodile tears shed about this by the Nazis. Nothing could be nearer to hypocrisy than Nazi sorrow about a crime of this sort.
When I was. in Poland after the war, I made it my business to go to the extermination camps of Majdanek and Oswiecim, which is better known in this country by the German name of Auschwitz. and I saw evidence of what the
756
Germans did which really makes one's blood run cold. I have seen the receipts given by the man at the gas chamber of Majdanek. The Germans were very careful; a receipt was given once every 20 or 30 minutes for several years, and every time about 35 people were put to death. A typical receipt would be, "10 Poles, 12 Polish Jews, 6 Ukrainian women with 5 children, one Norwegian and one Rumanian Jew." I have seen the tins of poison gas which were used for the purpose, labelled" Zyklon" and produced in tins with a skull and crossbones on them and red paint all around, and with many notices about the danger of handling it.
The Germans were very careful. Before the prisoners were pushed into the gas chamber, everybody was given a hot shower and a shave. I have seen a receipt given by a firm in Hamburg for 1,000 kilograms—which is a ton—of human hair. I have seen 800,000 pairs of shoes in an enormous hut, one of several consignments which were left behind. I had the chance to examine them. There were the sort of shoes worn by old Polish women in going to market. There were the sort of shoes worn by Frenchwomen to go shopping. There were Norwegian shoes, German shoes, Ukrainian shoes. every imaginable sort of shoe in those 800,000. There were tiny shoes, two inches long. It was a terrible sight.
I am sorry to say that, on many occasions, the gas chambers could not work hard enough, and the men who had to carry the corpses up the incline to the furnaces were unable to get there quick enough. On those occasions the S.S. men shot people down into ditches. I have seen the ditches which they were shot into. At Auschwitz they did not leave things at all to chance. The gas chambers were mechanised. They pressed a button, on went the moving floor, and the bodies were tipped into a furnace. I am sorry to spoil your Lordships' evening, but it is necessary to see the terrible crime of Katyn against the other appalling crimes that have been committed in Poland against our gallant allies. This is a most shocking affair and one wonders how it could have happened.
We British have made one terrible mistake in our time. We have been inclined to say, " Well, it does not much

757
matter what people believe. What really matters is what they do." We could not have been more wrong. When Rosenberg produced his theory of "dehumanisation" or Entmenschlichung, which was that if by suffering you could dehumanise people and reduce them to the level of beasts then it did not matter if you killed them, perhaps we ought to have taken more notice. Perhaps we ought also to have realised that these terrible doctrines would find expression in the appalling acts which we have seen in our century. You have to go back hundreds of years to find the like.
Many of my friends died in the Warsaw Ghetto. They were herded into it, deprived of food and finally destroyed and burned alive. Many of my friends were killed in the Warsaw Rising. It was impossible after the war, when Warsaw had been destroyed by flame-throwers, house by house, to know what continent you were standing in when you stood in the middle of the Castle Square in Warsaw. I remember that in the house next to the one I lived in there was a handwritten notice which said, "Under this doorway there are two bodies. Do not disturb them. I will come back and bury them." It was signed, "Their brother". During that terrible episode of the Warsaw Rising—I saw all the diplomatic telegrams at the time—we made many applications to the Russians for them to give help or to allow us to send aeroplanes and to drop help ourselves. Warsaw was too far away for our bombers to go there and back at that time, without being able to land and refuel in Russia. It is a matter of history that Stalin, although pressed at the highest levels, refused to allow that to be done. The Russians were just over the river in the suburb of Praga. Your Lordships must imagine that the Germans were here and the Russians were at the Shell centre or possibly at the Elephant and Castle, somewhere between the two, but nothing whatever was done to help those gallant men, all our allies, fighting the Nazis in Warsaw. It was, I think, a crime not much less to be condemned than the crime of Katyn, for I suppose that far more gallant men were killed in that appalling episode.
I am not very much in favour of looking back on these shocking episodes of our century, except that we may be able
758
to learn some lessons for the future. What can we learn from these awful events? First of all, how can we help our gallant Polish allies? We have in the United Kingdom a wonderful Pole in almost every office. They are very valued and esteemed members of our community. They earn a good deal, because they are efficient people and very devoted and they work hard. But there is much hardship, also, among the widows, and especially among the retired intellectuals and the elderly people who cannot earn their living any more. They need our help and sympathy. There are excellent Polish charities which I can recommend for your Lordships' consideration.
Secondly, we have to recognise that we should not handle this affair, or other affairs, so as to stir up the Poles in Poland against the Russians. It is no good: one has to recognise the strategic facts of life in the years in which we live. I have heard it said (I have never had concrete proof) that there were broadcasts either from London or from Russia —the two sides blame each other—requesting the Poles in Warsaw to rise when they did. I have never seen the actual proof; but there is no doubt that when they did rise they got themselves effectively destroyed. If we were to say the same to the Poles to-day, it would just be another Warsaw rising; it would just be another Czechoslovakia of 1968. I think we should not do them any good. I should like to go further than this. I should like to say that, viewed in modern terms, Poland has nothing to gain by East/West tensions.
I think that one can go even further than that now and say that it reaily is essential to bring about better East/West relations altogether. I myself believe that we should never miss a chance to settle outstanding issues with the Russians. We have a great common interest in the preservation of peace. Poland is perhaps not so well off as it would have been if it had been a free Western country, but it is making some progress and the people there seem to keep alive. Nevertheless, my Lords, it really is a grim and sombre cloud that hangs over the East of Europe. The Russians are a people with very high discipline. They are extremely secretive about their affairs. I think there will never be any chance of establishing the facts of Starobielsk and the other

759
camps unless the Russians give permission for an investigation, or undertake an absolutely objective investigation themselves. Therefore, I find it very hard to see how we can carry this matter to the full elucidation of the truth which I agree would be desirable.
Fourthly, my Lords, I think the time has come, looking at these events on the broadest scale, to recognise how important it is that we should strengthen Western Europe. The U.S.S.R. aims to exploit the differences between nations: she despises weakness. The lightning invasion of Czechoslovakia was really the writing on the wall. It is high time—very high time, my Lords—to unite Europe still more. I think we should draw NATO closer together; and in my view it is high time that the United Kingdom joined the European Economic Community and lent its weight to those who wish to strengthen the Free World.
Finally, my Lords, as a philosophical reflection, if I may be permitted this at the end of this very distressing speech, I should like to say that it is important to strengthen our own society. I believe, looking back at the history of Rosenberg and at the history of what happened in Russia, that it is vitally important to look into our own society and to look at the doctrines on which our young are being brought up. How do you think they will react to possible future crimes of ruthless lust, violence and brutality, such as Katyn, or new Katyns nearer home, when they are nurtured daily by the cinema and T.V. on scenes of rape, murder and bestiality? Should we not be thinking about the ideas on which we are bringing up the young generation, whose duty it will be to control the Governments of the future? Was it not the failure of German and Russian opinion to control their Governments which led to the terrible events of our century? With Katyn, Auschwitz and the Warsaw ghetto behind us, and having before us much ruthless murder and violence in our own cities, especially in Northern Ireland, with declining security in many cities in North and South America, I am full of foreboding for the future of our civilisation. For democracy to be worth while, it should know what it believes in and be prepared to defend its beliefs at home and abroad.
760
At present, our Christian civilisation is living on capital, and there may not be all that much capital left—and perhaps not so much time, either.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, I too have personal recollections of Poland, though they are not so extensive or so far-reaching as his. But I was sent to Poland in July, 1939, as a special correspondent of The Times to cover the events leading up to, and indeed following, the outbreak of war. Therefore, to this day I remember with great vividness the first days of the World War there: the darkened, silent streets; the disappearance of men to mobilisation and, only a very few days later, the disintegration, the partition and the arrival of the Russian tanks. Like the noble Earl, Lord Arran, I share a haunting sense of a foul conscience over Poland—a Poland that we urged to fight, a Poland that we encouraged to fight, a Poland that we promised to back to the end.
My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, put it, we owe a debt of honour to the Polish nation. "Oh !", it is said, "Why rake it all up again? Why revive old quarrels?"
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt, but on a point of historical fact—and I did see all the diplomatic correspondence in 1939—we did not encourage the Poles to fight; we really did beseech them to be very moderate, and they really were very moderate. I do not think that we carry responsibility for pushing the Poles into war.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, with the very greatest respect, and paying particular respect to one who was much closer to events than I was, because the noble Lord was in the Diplomatic Service, I remember Mr. Chamberlain's "Peace Front", which was an endeavour to ring Germany round with allies in Eastern Europe; and, whatever may have been done diplomatically, the people of Britain prayed that the Poles would resist and prayed that our Government here would stand up and fight as well. But this is a matter of opinion, and I am sure the noble Lord and my personal friend Lord Hankey will agree to let us differ on that interpretation.

761
What I do believe is that there are times when we must look back, albeit with prudence. Those who were responsible on either side are no longer with us. The Baldwin-Chamberlain epoch of appeasement, when young Tory reformers denounced their Front Bench as a row of extinct volcanoes and their BankBenchers as the Forty Thieves, may have been shameful in many ways. But the epoch of Hitler and Ribbentropp, of Stalin and Molotov, which begat the Nazi-Soviet Pact—this is something very different. For that Pact was one of the great betrayals of history, and that Pact is the context of this debate. I am not one who shares the common fashion of believing that foreign policies should be founded on moral indignation about the domestic affairs of other countries, because I do not believe that Governments are the same as individuals. Nor can one expect them to be responsible in the same moral sense as individuals. But at Nuremberg we joined with the United States, France and Russia to judge and condemn crimes against humanity. My belief is that, whoever was responsible for the Katyn massacres—and the opinion of this House, it is quite evident, is unanimous so far—the Katyn massacres were certainly in the class of crimes against humanity.
"Oh, yes", they say, "but it is all old history; let bygones be bygones." My Lords, there are two attitudes to history. You may say, as did Lord Chesterfield, that it is just a "confused heap of facts". You may say, as did Carlyle, that history is "a great dust heap". You may even re-echo, as did Lord Beaverbrook, the immortal words of Henry Ford that, "History is just bunk". I believe that the dignity of history deserves to be better attested, and by whom better than the father of history, Thucydides himself, who said that history is philososphy learned from examples, or in the words of Sir Walter Raleigh, something from which we may gather a policy,
"no less wise than eternal by the comparisons and applications of other mens forepast miseries with our own like error and ill deservings."
Perhaps it was best summed up in Schiller's lines:
" Die Weltgeschichte ist das Weltgericht."
—world history is the world's judgment.
762
It has been said of a man before now that if he has no enemies he has no honour. It has been said that, if so, he also deserves no friends. We have had brave friends among the smaller nations: Greece, Jugoslavia, New Zealand and Poland come to mind at once. I pray God that this House and this country will never, never shrink from supporting, encouraging and honouring our friends. To discard our friends is to besmirch their honour; to neglect their record—or to connive at such a thing—would be to dishonour ourselves. I beg Her Majesty's Government to recognise to-day our debt of honour at least to go as far as, in the words of this Motion, "To support an effort.
6.41 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, we have been debating this afternoon an epic tragedy and an epic crime, the deliberate assassination of close on 15,000 defenceless prisoners of war, mostly officers and intellectual leaders. These were men who had surrendered and whose surrender had been accepted, under the existing rules of war by which civilised nations normally abide, even when they arc dragged by cruel circumstances or by cruel design over the brink of war. These men had surrendered in such circumstances to a powerful and crushingly victorious foe. They had conceded and defined their helplessness, with bitter dismay, and placed themselves in the hands of that victorious enemy. They were totally defenceless, totally at the mercy of their captors. They had ceased to fight and counted upon the laws of civilised man to preserve their lives. There was no question of any form of trial before their execution, because their innocence of any offence was patent and never in dispute. The condemnation of this House in this debate has been unanimous. How could it be otherwise?
Let there be no mistake or underestimate as to what this Unstarred Parliamentary Question contains. It contains a charge, a charge that the Soviet authorities, in the spring of 1940, planned and implemented this mass assassination. It is a crime, as I have said, perpetrated thirty years ago, but it concerns the future conduct of human affairs in a way which the equally bestial crimes of Nazi Germany do not concern that future. It concerns our world and its

763
future because the accused is not only free and unpunished but powerful, self-righteous and influential. It even claims to be a pattern of morality, a mirror in which the more gullible nations of the world, the more gullible groups and individuals, are encouraged to gaze bemused. Some of them gaze; many are bemused. That is a danger which confronts the present population of this globe.
This small but significant debate does not pretend to be a trial of the Soviet rulers, either those immediately accused or their successors who express no concern over this unexpiated crime. This is not a trial of the directly accused, because your Lordships' House is not sitting judically; and if it were there would be no sanctions or penalties available to such a court. But in a sense, at one remove or at two removes, somebody is on trial to-day and we all hope within a few minutes to see innocence declared and proven. Her Majesty's Government, of which I am a devoted supporter, is on test, if not on trial, in the terms of my noble friend's Question. Her Majesty's Government are asked to do something well within their power, to support an effort to secure pronouncement upon the authorship of mass murder.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: And to tell the truth!
LORD ST. OSWALD: And to insist upon the truth being known, as the noble Earl has said. Their response to this disinterested appeal will be a measure of their own sense of international morality. I am confident that this Government's sense of morality is at least as high as that of any Government in the world.
Evidence of the crime was first discovered after a delay of nearly three years, and the evidence then bore the stigma of being presented by the German Nazi Government and through the agency of Dr. Goebbels. The British Government of the day stood back, understandably enough, from judgment. I think that we can be indulgent to the then Foreign Secretary, Sir Anthony Eden, for saying in his statement to Parliament on May 4, 1943:
"His Majesty's Government have no wish to attribute blame for these events to anyone except the common enemy."
764
Later in the same statement, he said:
" The Germans need indulge no hope that their manoeuvres will weaken the combined offensive of the allies or the growing resistance of the enslaved populations of Europe."
That reassuring forecast was accurate in a large degree. Goebbels's propaganda, based so consistently on lies, did not succeed, when, by a savage windfall of war, it was able to employ the truth. It did not succeed in undermining the will of the Anglo-American alliance. What is more wonderful by far is that it did not lead to a reduction of fighting effort by the Poles themselves who had such grim, predictive evidence of the future awaiting them, when one form of slavery would be exchanged for another. These Poles were still to throw themselves, heroically, into the taking of Monte Cassino in the Allied cause; they were still to undertake the sacrifice of the Warsaw rising when they were so ruthlessly, deliberately, betrayed by the Soviet Army, on the orders of the Soviet Government; condemned to slaughter by the retreating German invaders, who crushed that rising while the Soviet forces waited outside Warsaw and allowed them to do so. The purpose then was identical with the cold purpose of the massacre of Katyn: to kill off, or to permit to be killed off, the flower of the leadership of a nation not amenable to the despotism they were preparing to impose.
That could have been the end of it, an incident quietly, quiescently, forgotten or relegated as a footnote to history. That would be comfortable, perhaps. But nations have achieved greatness and maintained greatness by other endeavours than simply seeking comfort, by sheltering behind the circumstances and conditions of the past. To pick up Sir Anthony Eden's phrase again, to go back to May 4, 1943, and submit it to the factors of our day: there is now no war and no common enemy to menace our existence; by the same token there is no common scapegoat and no sweeping indemnity—and in saying this I am echoing the theme of the noble Earl, Lord Arran. To-day all nations are equal before the law, in theory at least. What my noble friend Lord Barnby is demanding is that, in the light of recorded history, with the threat of Nazism long extinguished, never to be revived, Her Majesty's Government shall insist on a proper and public evaluation of the evidence assembled and tested

765
in the thirty years subsequent to that savage and sickening event.
The crime in itself, the massacre of 14,500 Polish captives, is not questioned. Nobody claims that they evaporated in some miraculous and painless manner. The corpses of 4,133, each with a bullet in the back of the neck, have been exhumed in the Forest of Katyn. The fate of the remaining two-thirds is a matter of conjecture so far as the whereabouts of their murders is concerned; but nobody doubts that their end was violent, treacherous and inhuman. This is an epic atrocity of our own times. It is a condemnation, perhaps, of what our own highly developed species can do to each other in the 20th century. It is the deliberate, organised, premeditated nature of the crime which sets it apart from many other crimes of our epoch.
There is another characteristic upon which my noble friend Lord Barnby and following speakers have thrown a strong light to-day. Nobody has been brought to the bar of justice. There was a cynical attempt to add this to the list of Nazi crimes paraded and punished at Nuremberg. With all the facilities for gathering and presenting evidence available to that court, the attempt was so hollow that this charge, though included in the initial indictment at the behest of the Russians, was significantly omitted altogether from the judgment. It is a matter so horrifying in its nature that, so it seems to me, it must be treated either at great length and in great detail or briefly, by concentrating upon the essence of the crime itself. Important and poignant is the opportunity given to us by my noble friend this evening. It is not, as I see it, the opportunity to present the full case; and to attempt to present a condensed case would be to duplicate the opening speech of my noble friend Lord Barnby.
Evidence there is in abundance and, as we have seen, much of that evidence has been studied by noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. There is the evidence of those few who escaped, by some quirk or some strange reasoning of their captors, the fate which befell their fellow prisoners; and whose surviving witness points to guilt convincingly enough for most of us. There is the Report of the International Medical Commission which went to the scene of the massacre in Katyn Forest in
766
April, 1943. There is the Report of the Select Committee of the United States Congress, a model of thoroughness and meticulous research. There is the report of the Polish Government Special Committee set up in 1944, its findings published in February 1946, under the title The Facts and Documents Concerning the Polish Prisoners of War captured by the U.S.S.R. during the 1939 Campaign. There is other separate fully corroborative evidence which has been collected over the years.
In the course of the past few months two books and a 70-minute television programme, all three comprising deep, systematic research, have brought part of that research in a responsible form before the scrutiny of the British public. At this point I must mention a factor which possibly I should have mentioned earlier. We are so properly scrupulous in this House in declaring an interest of any kind that I must mention my part as the publisher of one of those books. The impulse to publish and the impulse to speak sprang equally from a conviction—shared by all those taking part so far in this debate— that this hideous page of history should be studied and judged upon. Both of those books have been referred to more than once in this debate. One is entitled, Death in the Forest; the other, Katyn, A Crime Without Parallel. I do not know whether the latter is a valid title, for who is capable of comparing one crime with another?
My Lords, we deem ourselves as living in a civilised age, an improvement on others. How sound is our diagnosis? It seems crucial to me that we should study ourselves, not simply as individuals or nations but as a civilisation which will have to pass on an inheritance, hopeful, ominous or indifferent, to those who come after. I do not think it is inordinately hubristic to claim that the nations of the democratic West are healthily self-critical compared to the self-glorifying dictatorships of the East. Certainly in the strictures which opposing political Parties pass upon each other in this Parliament building there is plenty of scope for questioning and for debunking our designs. This we all believe to be our strength. There is a corresponding weakness in the dictatorships which we ignore. But because that weakness

767
weakens the world we live in, we cannot, responsibly, shrug it off or look the other way.
I have myself seen and listened to the hubristic arrogance of the Communist countries, and I have seen how easily duped are the unwary and the uncommitted nations, gapingly impressed by such aggressive confidence. I have seen them unimpressed, contemptuously unimpressed, by the manner in which we, the Western nations, willingly, repeatedly, turn the other cheek and give a soft answer in preference to an honest and informative answer—anything for a peaceful life, even if it means cringing away from awkward facts. Here we have an undoubted awkward fact. I have said earlier that the innocence of the murdered was never disputed. I do not believe that the guilt or identity of the murderers can be disputed to-day, in this place or in any place where free speech is permitted. Very little, if any, investigation remains to be done. The material evidence, collected, codified and ready for inspection, is there. The weight of that evidence, to one who has studied it, is overwhelming. It awaits an authoritative judgment and verdict delivered to the world. It could be the simplest, least laborious task that the United Nations had ever been set. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, satisfied by the force of what has been said to-day and no doubt satisfied by the facts which they themselves have read, may present that task to the United Nations.
The Soviet rulers are on visibly weak ground in the matter of treatment, past and present, even of their own minorities within their own borders. This weakness is reflected in the monstrously arrogant or widely diversive speeches delivered by their spokesman at the United Nations when kindred subjects are raised; either in the Third Committee, in the Economic and Social Committee, before the Human Rights Commission or before the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities. Here is a case concerning the dead who cannot be brought back, a case which cries out for world attention and obloquy. What is required is a lead, and I believe that lead could most properly be given by the British Government. Yet for thirty years British Governments
768
have been treading water; or, to put it more luridly, since this is a lurid chronicle which has to be related, Governments of all complexions and of many lands have been treading blood. It is the blood of 15,000 of our own innocent and defenceless allies; of a nation which fought staunchly and with legendary valour beside us in the war against Nazism from the beginning to the end. Such a lead would also demonstrate hearteningly that good men are not forgotten; that gratitude does not wither; that decent people care about the fate of their fellow men, whether they lie in a known or a secret grave, furtively buried beyond sight by their assassins. We owe this assurance in particular to Poland, one of the noblest, bravest and most unflinchingly loyal of allies that this country has ever had the good fortune to fight beside. I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, say that had we raised the matter of Katyn we could not have persuaded the Russians to go on fighting. Nothing stopped the Poles fighting, even after they knew that part of our victory would be the sacrifice of their own land!
What we, who have taken part in this debate to-day, are trying to achieve is not to punish a still unpunished crime, because punishment is neither feasible nor desirable in this context. What I think most of us have been trying to do is to state the obvious, and not turn away and leave it in placid anonymity. The obvious to us all is that where an inhuman crime has been committed, there is a criminal to be arraigned. What is dangerous for us all is that this criminal should be permitted to stalk and straddle the world scene, not simply flaunting his immunity, but repeating his crime, as a kind of primitive droit de seigneur, repeating it in the Baltic countries, in one Balkan country after another, in Poland again, in Hungary and in Czechoslovakia. We have been persuaded to dignify it with the title of the Brezhnev doctrine. It has come to the point where we accept the primitive, brutal appetite of Soviet Russia in each new manifestation as if it were a kind of unfortunate, now almost hereditary, mannerism, a recognised and tacitly legalised mannerism with which we have to live, so far at the cost of our neighbours, while we whistle and look the other way like a philosophical, docile peasantry.

769
Even though there can be no penalty attached to the judgment we utter to-day as participants in this debate, let us treat this—and I beg the Government to treat this—as a test case. Take it as a detective challenge, so much more of a challenge because the case is thirty years old, an ostensibly unsolved crime, only unsolved because so far nobody has had sufficient mettle to name the criminal. If an unquestionably democratic Government such as our own were to go back thirty years to pin a historic crime upon the criminal, that would impress the uncommitted world—and it would impress the criminal. It might even do something to deter continuing crime. That is the opportunity that my noble friend Lord Aberdare has this evening, in giving the Government's answer to the Question presented to them.
7.4 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, this has been a very moving debate and not surprisingly, I think, virtually unanimous. The crime which gives rise to this debate is, I suppose, one of the greatest crimes in history. As has been said by previous speakers, it is difficult to give an order of villainy but it is difficult to conceive of a viler crime than this was. If anything could increase its vileness, I think it would be that this colossal act of murder seems to have been executed as an exercise in social engineering, the necessity to prejudice the possibility of a country's recovery and its future by taking away all power —and generally the simplest way of doing that is by taking away all life—from its natural leaders.
My noble friends in all quarters of the House have so well expressed the points I should have made that I should not have added my voice to-night had it not been that my silence might perhaps have been misunderstood by my Polish friends. It so happens that Poland has played a large part in my political life, for it was 26 years ago that I found it necessary to resign from Winston Churchill's war-time Government because it seemed to me that the Agreement at Yalta was unprincipled and wrong. I thought then, as I have thought ever since, that it was not only unprincipled and wrong, but that it was one of the great blunders of history. When I
770
resigned, for reasons which seemed to me overwhelming, I do not think that I then had a Polish friend. My action depended on what I thought of the issues involved. But since then I have had a great number of Polish friends, and I should not like any of them to think that I was lacking in support on this Question that has been raised to-day.
But there is another ground on which I commend the proposal before the House, one that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley— the truth. Some people may think that the establishment of the truth may not much matter, and it is difficult to demonstrate that it does. I suppose that fundamentally it is a matter of faith. I believe that the establishment of the truth is always right. I will not enlarge on that, because it is a matter of faith. In the end, the truth will be established. Lies will not prevail for ever—at least, I hope not—unless the Communists conquer the world. But there is something to be said for accelerating the revelation of truth, the discovery and establishment of the truth. I would conclude my few remarks by a notable hut sad quotation from the English poet, Coventry Patmore:
" When all its work is done, the lie shall rot; The truth is great and shall prevail,
When none cares whether it prevail or not ".
7.9 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I am not on the list of speakers, but as the House is in a reminiscent mood perhaps I could briefly tell your Lordships of a deputation which went to Russia in the dark days of January, 1945, to pay the respects of both Houses of Parliament to the Supreme Presidium of the Soviet Republic. There were two Peers and also members of the Forces, a soldier, a sailor and an airman, and for some obscure reason I was chosen as a Peer and as a soldier. I was suffering from war wounds at the time and I wore my uniform, and I took with me films of the Normandy landings. Perhaps for that reason, I had more chance of talking to Stalin than any other member of the delegation, which was led by the late Colonel Walter Elliot, whose widow Baroness Elliot of Harwood, now sits in our House. Stalin allowed me to ask one question which was of considerable importance from the

771
point of view of bringing back information to this country. The question I asked was, "As you roll back the German armies" (the advance was then pushing on from Stalingrad, where Russia turned and fought back) "what will the Russian armies do in the next fortnight?" Stalin replied, through Mr. Maisky, the Ambassador at the Court of St. James's, who had then returned to Moscow, "When we reach the Vistula we shall pause."
This is the point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, made when he said that was a deliberate policy. The noble Viscount, Lord Monckton, also made the point that it was Russian policy to exterminate the Polish leaders and what happened in Warsaw was the attempted destruction of the Polish people. With all respect to Lord Barnby, to whom we are so grateful for having inaugurated this debate to-day, the massacre in the Forest of Katyn was small beer in comparison to what happened in Warsaw. I feel that the message of whatever we have discovered to-day is that you cannot crush the leaders of a country like Poland. The forest massacre was only one incident in a much bigger series of crimes.
7.12 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in putting his Question, the noble Lord. Lord Barnby, spoke with very great sincerity and depth of feeling. This has been the case with every successive speech this evening. Indeed, I think many speeches have gone even further and have been made with deep emotion on this subject, on which all your Lordships obviously feel so very strongly. There can he no doubt in the mind of anyone who has listened to this debate or who may subsequently read it, what your Lordships' opinions are of this tragic affair. There have been some very distinguished contributions, including one from my noble friend Lord Salisbury, and other of your Lordships have made very well informed contributions to the debate. Some new items of history have emerged. The noble Lord. Lord Shinwell, told of the meeting he had with Mr. Maisky: the noble Earl. Lord Arran of his Foreign Office and Press conferences: and just now my noble friend Lord Lovat told us of his
772
interview with Stalin. All this has been of great value to the debate.
There was one item of history which I think perhaps might be put right. There was an inaccuracy which crept in at one point when the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell and my noble friend Lord Dundee referred to an inquiry by the International Red Cross. This was something which the Germans sought, but it never took place because of objections from the Russians in 1943; and in fact the Germans set up their own inquiry, which I shall mention a little later and which has already been referred to by my noble friend Lord Barnby. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, described it as "a sordid and squalid affair" and my noble friend Lord St. Oswald as "a savage and sickening event". I am sure we all agree. All wars are sordid and squalid affairs, all wars are savage and sickening events; and the Second World War was no exception.
Some of its most atrocious events have begun to fade from our consciousness with the passage of time, though the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, reminded us of some of them. But there is a special and dreadful fascination about the tragedy of the Katyn massacre and the disappearance of 10,000 other Poles, which has resulted in persistent attempts to penetrate the obscurity in which these events are still shrouded. Against the total number of lives lost during the war, a figure of 10,000 or 15,000 is perhaps not striking in itself. At least 800,000 Russians died in the seige of Leningrad alone. But the Polish officers who disappeared, and some of whom were later found dead in the Forest of Katyn, formed part of the elite of the Polish nation, a nation which had already been cruelly buffeted by history and was to suffer still more cruelly before the war was over. It is perhaps this aspect in particular, together with the mystery to which I have referred, that has attracted, and still attracts, the public interest to which my noble friend's Question gives expression.
May I say at once that the Government are not insensitive to public thinking on these dreadful events. Governments are composed of human beings, and we have followed the recent public discussion of the issue very closely. But I would ask the House to bear in mind that,

773
unlike private individuals or the information media, Governments are not at liberty to voice half-formed views, speculations or suspicions. Therefore, although I sympathise deeply with my noble friend's motives in raising this question, we must look closely and dispassionately at what the Government are asked to do.
As I understand it, the Question in effect asks Her Majesty's Government to take a lead in organising a definitive pronouncement on who was responsible for the death or disappearance of over 14,000 Polish officers more than thirty years ago. It is towards the Soviet Government that the Question points its finger. It states that the 4,000 victims at Katyn were murdered "in the spring of 1940", and noble Lords will be aware that the Germans did not invade that area until the following year. There are a number of objections to acting in the way my noble friend proposes. First, Her Majesty's Government have absolutely no standing in this matter. It may be said that this is not a legal but a moral question. Even if this were so, and if it were the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take up every moral challenge regardless of legal competence, I ask the House to consider for a moment the history of the question in order to judge whether the proposal of the noble Lord is realistic.
Since the initial discovery of the bodies in the Katyn Forest by the Germans in 1943, there has been no dearth of investigations and attributions of guilt, and my noble friend Lord Barnby explained them. The German Government, as I mentioned earlier, established an International Medical Commission, none of whose members was of German nationality, though all, except one (a Swiss), came from German occupied countries. This Commission found that the Polish officers had been murdered in the spring of 1940; that is, before the German invasion. As I have already pointed out to the House, that is exactly the conclusion assumed in the Question. In 1944, a Special Commission set up by the Soviet Government found that the Germans had perpetrated the massacre in the autumn of 1941. Later still, in 1952, an American Congressional Committee concluded that responsibility for the massacre lay with the Soviet Union.
774
I would emphasise that Her Majesty's Government were in no way associated with any of these three investigations, nor have Her Majesty's Government accepted any of their various conclusions. The only inquiry in which Britain was involved took place at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal in 1946. The results were inconclusive and the judgments issued by the Nuremberg Tribunal contained no reference to the Katyn massacre.
In these circumstances, we must ask ourselves what kind of inquiry, by whom and in what conditions, could possibly establish "beyond contention", to use the words of my noble friend's Question, the authorship of those crimes.
LORD ST. OSWALD: I should like to ask my noble friend this question. When the Katyn crime came up for investigation at the Nuremberg trials, was the possibility of Russian guilt investigated, or only the possibility of German guilt?
LORD ABERDARE: My impression is that it was only the question of German guilt that was investigated at Nuremberg. All I wanted was to state exactly what are the facts as seen from the Government's point of view. I was asking what we could possibly do to establish beyond contention who was the author of this crime. Is it likely, is it even conceivable, that the truth about these events could be established now to universal satisfaction, when it was not established in 1941, in 1944, in 1946 or in 1952? The Soviet Government, on whose territory the forest of Katyn lies, maintains the position it adopted in 1941; that all Polish officers in Soviet prison camps were released, and that those found dead at Katyn were killed by the Germans. The Polish Government (whose wishes should surely be respected in the matter) has said that it regards the incident as closed. Can it really be suggested that these Governments would now co-operate in a fresh inquiry? And, if not, what would be the value of any conclusion that might be reached?
I suggest to the House that the only result of a new inquiry would be to reopen old wounds. Historians are free to discuss this mystery, and no doubt they will continue to do so. The Press, radio and televison are not muzzled or controlled in this country. But the noble Lord's Question invites Her Majesty's,

775
Government to take certain action, and this action we regard as not only beyond our competence, but likely to lead to nothing but pain, disagreement and illwill. Having said that, may I add that I have been deeply impressed by what your Lordships have said in the course of this debate, and I will certainly undertake to pass on to my right honourable friend the depth of feeling unanimously expressed by your Lordships' House.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him: is he saying that Her Majesty's Government are funking it?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, that was not the tenor of my remarks.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I have no right to speak again, because this is an Unstarred Question and I have had my opportunity. But I want only to ask the noble Lord this. In passing on what has been said in this House to-day to his right honourable friend, would he also make the suggesttion contained in my speech: that if it is impossible to raise this matter before the United Nations—and I agree that it would be useless, because the Russians would immediately put on their veto—would it not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to do something which they have not done up to now, and that is to express their own view about the Katyn massacre?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I will certainly convey that point to my right honourable friend.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, perhaps I may point out to my noble friend that it is absurd to say that the Polish Government opposes this matter. The Polish Government is under the Russian Government. Of course it would oppose it.

ANGLESEY MARINE TERMINAL BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with, received, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.
  GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL AND BRITISH FORCES IN ULSTER
  GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL AND BRITISH FORCES IN ULSTER
  PROSECUTION PROCESS: RECOMMENDATIONS OF JUSTICE
  PROSECUTION PROCESS: RECOMMENDATIONS OF JUSTICE