Sitting of 23 June 1971

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

  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered.
  Bill to be read the Third time.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
Bill to be read the Third time tomorrow.

EXETER CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Emigration
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the figures of emigration from Scotland in 1970; and what were the comparable statistics for each of the last 10 years.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gordon Campbell): As the answer consists of a table of figures, I shall, with permission, publish it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the net figures went down in the last few years of the Labour Government? As the Government have not a clue about how to solve the unemployment problem, and as the problem will get worse when they butcher Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, will the right hon.
    1398
    Gentleman arrange for the shipyards in the Clyde to provide more ships to ship out the emigrants?
    Mr. Campbell: Without accepting the implications of the hon. Gentleman's remark about Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, I point out that the highest figure of emigration from Scotland since 1946 was in 1966, when it was 47,000, and that the next highest figure was in 1967, when it was 45,000. Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that emigration can be kept to a minimum.
    Mr. Ross: Bearing in mind that the right hon. Gentleman must have some information about the figures and the trend, will he say whether the continuing and progressive reduction year by year—from the 47,000 figure in 1966 until it was reduced to 21,000 last year—has continued?
    Mr. Campbell: It is too early yet to identify the trend since the 1970 figure.
    Following are the figures:

    Year to June

    Net loss by migration from Scotland

    1960

    28,500

    1961

    34,600

    1962

    29,500

    1963

    34,000

    1964

    40,600

    1965

    43,000

    1966

    47,000

    1967

    45,000

    1968

    33,000

    1969

    25,000

    1970

    21,000

  Grant-aided Schools
  Mr. Brewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to complete his review of the long-term grant arrangements for grant-aided schools; and if he will make a statement.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Education, Scottish Office (Mr. Edward Taylor): The grant-aided schools are at present preparing at my right hon. Friend's request a collective view on the long-term arrangements and they hope to let him have this by about the end of July. We shall want to consider their views and I cannot yet say when the review will be completed.
  Mr. Brewis: Is it the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that schools like George Watson's and Heriot's, which have contributed to the excellence of Scottish education, should

  1399
  be able to continue to do so and should not be slowly strangled for doctrinaire reasons, which was the object of the last Secretary of State?
  Mr. Taylor: The Government are committed to continuing to support grant-aided schools.
  Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the hon. Gentleman give the cost to the taxpayer of subsidising grant-aided schools in Scotland?
  Mr. Taylor: That is a separate question. I should be glad to give the hon. Member the precise information if he would table a Question. As I have said, the long-term arrangements for grant-aided schools are under review.

  Sunday Opening
  Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the interests of tourists and visitors on wet Sundays, he will introduce legislation to allow public houses, cinemas, museums, and other places of leisure to open on Sundays.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): For cinemas, museums and places of leisure generally no such legislation is required in Scotland since there is no general law prohibiting Sunday opening. The question of Sunday opening of public houses is within the terms of reference of the Clayson Committee on the licensing laws, and I propose to await its report.
  Mr. Ashton: As hundreds of men are unemployed in Scotland and hundreds of tourists are willing to spend money on Sundays, could not the two factors be combined? Is it not a sham and hypocrisy that visitors can sit in a hotel and drink beer and watch television on a Sunday and yet they are prevented from going into pubs and cinemas? Would the hon. Gentleman look into this matter? If he had spent a wet Sunday night in Inverness, as I did a month ago, I am sure that he would take action to change the situation.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Before the hon. Gentleman makes wild statements about employment in Scotland, he should look at the history of legislation in Scotland on matters such as this. The compara-
  1400
  tive absence of restrictive legislation in Scotland allows the practice in Scotland to develop in accordance with public opinion. I do not think that the Government should intervene in this matter.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the thanks of most people in Scotland for what he said at the end of his reply? They agree with the observance of Sunday. If any change were desirable, it should take into account the wishes of the people and not just those of someone who might have spent a wet Sunday night in Inverness.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall take into account the wishes of the people in Scotland. It is the people in Scotland who matter.
  Mr. Gray: My hon. Friend will be glad to know that he has the support of many Scottish Members in what he said, but may I remind the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that one of the main reasons why so many tourists go to the Highlands of Scotland is that the Highlands are so totally different from anything south of the Border?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly endorse what my hon. Friend says, and, without having to introduce a whole lot of new legislation, it remains true that Scotland has for the tourist more to offer than any other part of the United Kingdom, or even overseas.

  Guard Dogs
  Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now completed the joint considerations between himself and the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the existing law in relation to the use of guard dogs.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Yes, Sir. There have been only a few minor incidents in Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department intends to announce our joint conclusions tomorrow.
  Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer leaves us in some doubt? Would he not agree that there are far too many amateurs, even in Scotland, doing the job of training guard

  1401
  dogs to guard premises, and would he not agree that a guard dog roaming unattended about premises which it is supposed to be guarding cannot distinguish between some malicious intruder and, perhaps, a young child?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman need not be in doubt much longer. A statement will be made tomorrow. He will appreciate that this is a matter which is the concern of the Home Department as well as of our own, and, indeed, the incident which gave rise to current concern occurred in England. [HON. MEMBERS: "And Scotland."] I accept that there is public concern and worry about this, but we must keep a perspective, and our inquiries in Scotland have revealed so far three minor incidents. However, I assure the House that we do have concern about it, and the hon. Gentleman will hear more about it tomorrow.

  School Meals
  Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the survey of school meals taken on 27th May and indicate what reduction has taken place since charges were raised.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: The returns so far received from education authorities indicate that the number of pupils taking the school meal expressed as a proportion of the number present in school fell from two-fifths in January to one-third on 27th May. However, while the total number taking school meals was lower, the number receiving free meals increased and constituted 41·7 per cent. of the total number taking meals.
  Mr. Hughes: But is the Minister not prepared to accept that the very serious reduction in the number of children taking meals, coupled with the Government's policy on school milk, means that the Government are gambling with the health of children in Scotland? In view of the figures which he has just given, will he not be man enough to admit the error of his ways and reverse this policy?
  Mr. Taylor: Certainly not. I do not accept anything of what the hon. Member said. The fact is that there is always some decrease in the uptake in the summer term, and past experience suggests that a fall in uptake which immedi-
  1402
  ately follows any increase in charges is largely recovered during the following months. I would explain to the House that my figures are for Scotland less four authorities, because we are still awaiting returns from them; but I want to give the House as much information as possible. On that basis of comparing January and May, and less four authorities, the number receiving free meals increased from 83,502 to 103,084. I think that that shows the benefits of our policy.
  Mr. MacArthur: It is sometimes difficult to relate two-fifths and one-third, but am I right in my calculation that this means that one child fewer out of 15 is taking meals in school and that we should relate that to an increase of 25 per cent. in the number of children who are receiving free meals?
  Mr. Taylor: Yes. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his mastery of the decimal system as well as of fractions. He is absolutely right. I emphasise that there has been this quite dramatic increase in the number receiving free meals, so that we are getting help to where it is most needed.
  Mr. Buchan: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that these are the most devastating figures that he has given, that the total number receiving school meals has dropped, but that the number of free meals has risen—and that that is a terrible indictment of the employment policy of the Tory Party? Has he worked out how much more it will cost the Treasury as a result of the events last week with U.C.S., for example, and would it not be cheaper as well as more humane to drop this whole ridiculous policy?
  Mr. Taylor: No. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that his party increased school meal charges in the past, and that experience has been that when charges go up, there is a temporary reduction in uptake which, however, is largely recovered during the following months. I think that the figures for free meals which I have given show that many parents who, perhaps, in the past were reluctant to apply have now done so. This shows that the help we give goes where it is most needed.
  Mr. Ross: It is a measure of poverty in Scotland, that is all.

  Telephones for the Disabled
  Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with the way in which local authorities are implementing the appropriate provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act with regard to the provision of telephones for the disabled; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: As far as I am aware local authorities are giving careful consideration to any applications they receive from disabled persons for the provision of a telephone. My right hon. Friend intends, however, to refer to this subject in a circular to local authorities about services for the disabled.
  Mr. Hamilton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland gave an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) that he would personally ensure that local authorities would implement this part of the Act? Can he tell me whether this has been done?
  Mr. Taylor: It is quite clear that local authorities have the statutory power and it is for them to consider individual cases. However, as I say, my right hon. Friend intends to refer to this subject in a circular which will shortly be issued.

  Economic Surveys (Cost)
  Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the costs of the economic surveys prepared in Scotland in the period from 1960 to date.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The costs of the five major regional economic and physical planning studies commissioned by the Scottish Office since 1960 were:

  £

  Lothians

  56,000

  Grangemouth / Falkirk

  58,000

  Central Borders

  59,000

  North-East Scotland

  12,000

  Tayside

  35,000

  Mr. Douglas: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he inform the House whether he has read all those surveys? Of course, there is one survey omitted, which has had a devastating effect on the Scottish economy in the last few weeks. I refer to the sur-
  1404
  vey of the shipbuilding industry compiled by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). All those other surveys which the right hon. Gentle man has mentioned—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not entitled to make a speech. He must ask a question.
  Mr. Douglas: I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman will place in the Library of the House the survey of the shipbuilding industry prepared by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury so that we can all see the method by which the Government have butchered the industry on the Clyde.
  Mr. Campbell: I do not myself know anything of a survey of the kind described. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I presumed that the hon. Gentleman intended to raise the question of the survey which his own county of Clackmannan initiated, in which I am particularly interested.
  Mr. MacArthur: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is one survey to which he has not referred, and which is, perhaps, best forgotten? Does he recall the January, 1966, pre-election survey published by the Labour Party and which was wrong about employment, wrong about population, and wrong about everything else? Is is out of kindness that he has not mentioned it, or charity, perhaps, to the former Secretary of State? If so, is my right hon. Friend aware that those feelings of sympathy are ill deserved?
  Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I presume that the survey to which he referred is the January, 1966, White Paper which was linked to the National Plan, which also proved to be entirely wrong.
  Mr. Ross: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he knew nothing about and did not receive a copy of the report drawn up on the future of U.C.S. by his hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)? A direct yes or no.
  Mr. Campbell: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to something I have seen referred to in the newspapers, the answer is that I did not know of such a document.

  Fishing Limits (Scottish Coast)
  Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the areas off the Scottish coast which lie between the six and 12-mile fishing limits which are fished by current members of the European Economic Community and by other countries.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: A map is available in the Library showing in detail the areas in which fishing vessels of individual countries have fishing rights between the six-mile and 12-mile limits.
  Mr. Baker: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that no dilution will take place in the six- to 12-mile band by countries other than those already designated; and will he say whether the designation orders already in force will obtain should Britain enter the Common Market?
  Mr. Campbell: As my hon. Friend will see, if he is not already familiar with the map, in terms of the European Fisheries Convention, 1964, habitual fishing rights established in the 10 years prior to December, 1962 were granted to the fishing vessels of contracting parties. In addition, certain fishing rights were granted to Norwegian vessels off the Scottish coast. As these fishing rights are separate for individual countries, they are, of course, discriminatory and, therefore, this is a subject which has been under discussion in the negotiations in which my right hon. and learned Friend has been engaged in Luxembourg.
  Mr. Maclellan: Will the Secretary of State say what is the value, expressed as a proportion of the total catch, of the landings in Scotland from the six- to 12-mile area?
  Mr. Campbell: No firm figures are available, as no one can be certain on a national scale exactly where fish landed have been caught. However, I can say that almost all the herring and shell fish landed in Scotland come from within the six-mile limit, together with between one-quarter and one-third of all white fish landings, including deep-sea catches.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend taking steps to make the map to which he referred definitive, so that we
  1406
  know exactly where we are in law? What attention are the Government giving to the need for a greatly increased supply of fishery protection vessels, in view of the negotiations with the Common Market?
  Mr. Campbell: My hon. Friend already has a Question down on the second point, so I will wait until we reach it. On his first point, the map is widely distributed and known among fishermen and fisheries officers in Scotland, and I was glad, on my recent visit to the Orkneys and Shetlands, to find it in the appropriate offices. It is well known to the fishermen concerned but not to many others who are concerned about the interests of fishermen. There is no question of the 12-mile limit being abandoned. Whatever is negotiated, countries which are not members of the Common Market will still continue to be held outwith the 12-mile limit.

  House Improvement Grants
  Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of house improvement grants approved to date in 1971; and what was the number of approvals for the corresponding period of 1970.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Development, Scottish Office (Mr. George Younger): In the first quarter of 1971 grants were approved for 5,733 houses, compared with 5,179 in the first quarter of 1970.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those figures, which are pretty satisfactory. Will he press on with these schemes and make sure that householders know that improvement grants are available, because there is a lot of ignorance about them?
  Mr. Younger: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. I think he will agree with me that yesterday's announcement by my right hon. Friend of increased grants, which will enable a private owner to have as much as £1,800 or three-quarters of the cost, whichever is the less, will be a great stimulus to this most important part of our housing policy.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that we agree that the programme needs stimulating, in

  1407
  view of the disappointing figures? Will he give us a breakdown of the grants as they apply to owner-occupied, private tenancy and local authority houses?
  Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman will put down a detailed Question, I shall be happy to provide that information. If he thinks that these figures are disappointing, he may like to know that, since the publicity campaign which I launched two months ago, we have had no fewer than 2,800 inquiries from people wishing to take advantage of these grants. In addition, the greatly increased money which is available as from today should be a powerful stimulus.
  Mr. David Steel: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied with the rate of take-up of improvement grants by local authorities?
  Mr. Younger: The fairest answer I can give is that the take-up is rather patchy. Many local authorities are doing very well, but a number are unnecessarily reluctant about taking advantage of the grants.

  Rossend Castle, Burntisland
  Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many representations he has received against fixing the date for the public inquiry into the future of Rossend Castle, Burntisland, in the annual holidays; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Younger: The only representation my right hon. Friend received came from the Town Council. It is now proposed to hold the inquiry on Tuesday, 21st September.
  Mr. Gourlay: I thank the hon. Gentleman for postponing the date, but it appears that some of the representations which have been sent have gone missing either in the post or in his Department.
  Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman can tell me of some other representations which he thinks I should have received but obviously have not received, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what agreement has been reached with the local authorities on his proposals to replace housing subsidies at present in
  1408
  payment by new subsidies towards the cost of rent rebates; and if he will make a statement;
  (2) whether he is now in a position to estimate the range in the standard rent before rebate, which local authorities would require to charge on their three-and four-apartment houses in order to bring housing revenue and expenditure into balance after the proposed replacement of housing subsidies at present in payment; and if he will make a statement.
  Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent meetings with the local authority associations in Scotland concerning his proposals dealing with housing finance.
  Mr. Younger: I must ask hon. Members to await our detailed proposals on housing finance, which I hope to announce before the Recess.
  Mr. Lawson: Is it the Government's intention to welsh on obligations already entered into for houses that have been built?
  Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knowns, I cannot anticipate the details of the final policy which will emerge after consultations with local authorities are complete. As he also knows, we have said all along that the object is to renegotiate housing subsidies so that, in future, they are paid to those people and those authorities who have the greatest need.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that, while in the last series of discussions the local authorities were unanimous in welcoming these proposals, in these consultations many local authorities are bitterly opposed to them? Is it not, therefore, all the more important that a fresh dialogue should be entertained on the subject of a national rent rebate scheme, which we would welcome in Scotland, because of rising prices? It is essential to get the proper base line for the application of the rent rebate scheme if we are not to cause undue hardship.
  Mr. Younger: These matters will be discussed publicly after the announcement is made before the recess and will also be discussed in this House before the proposal goes through. The object of

  1409
  the discussion with local authorities is to work out the technical details of a major change in policy. Although there will no doubt be points on which we and the local authorities agree and points on which we disagree, we have had splendid co-operation from them throughout our discussions, which have been very fruitful.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order. Since Question No. 31 in my name is also being taken, is it permissible for me to ask a second supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes.
  Mr. Lawson: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell us, without beating about the bush, whether the discussions in which he is now engaged with local authorities are about something to be agreed with or to be imposed on local authorities? How much agreement, as distinct from imposition, will there be?
  Mr. Younger: The one thing about which I think the local authorities would be unanimous is that they have been very glad to be fully consulted on all the details of this policy. They would certainly have greatly resented it if they had not been fully consulted, and I am glad to say that they have been fully consulted.

  North-east of Scotland (Gaskin Report)
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now review the position of the Gaskin Report in planning future developments in the north-east of Scotland.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Development Authority and the Joint Planning Advisory Committee are keeping the position of the region under continuous review in liaison with the appropriate Government Departments. The Report continues to be a valuable guide.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that this Report, on the figures he announced today, was the cheapest of the exercises undertaken by the previous Government? Is he also aware that the balance of projected development in the area is somewhat unfairly in the direction of the constituency of my hon. and
  1410
  gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchell whose political skill in these matters is becoming legendary, but that it ignores the essentially industrial towns of Fraser-burg and Peterhead, which are thereby placed at a comparative disadvantage? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that investment in the infrastructure of the region will not be unfairly weighted for that reason?
  Mr. Campbell: I am sure that Professor Gaskin and his helpers were not concerned with the special pleading of any particular area. The Report was commissioned by, and submitted to, the previous Government before my hon. and gallant Friend won his seat. The Gaskin Report identified two growth zones, but made it clear that it was not excluding growth elsewhere. As the whole of the North-East has development area status, there is no special financial advantage for the two growth zones.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State not aware that the Gaskin Report laid great stress on the kind of incentives and help which the Government could give to bring industry into the area? Is he aware that this Development Authority, in conjunction with all interested bodies, is appalled at the change in Government policy on incentives? Will he look at this proposal again?
  Mr. Campbell: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said. I have had meetings with these two bodies and there was no question of their objecting to the changes which have been agreed. It was widely represented that these changes would be more on the lines recommended by the Report.

  Salmon
  Lieut.-Colonel Colin Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that, as a result of the recent meeting of the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries, the future of the salmon which are native to Scottish rivers has been adequately protected from both the commercial and sporting viewpoint; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Commission has proposed that the restrictions in 1971

  1411
  on sea fishing for salmon in the Commission's area should Continue in 1972 and 1973, subject to review during that period if substantial changes occur. I am satisfied that this was the best agreement that could be reached in the circumstances.
  Lieut.-Colonel Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend believe that the salmon stocks in the Atlantic can stand catches of about 2,000 metric tons and more by Danish fishermen off Greenland? Would he not agree that by 1973 the Scottish salmon is very likely to be extinct?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I do not share my hon. and gallant Friend's fears for the future. We have made absolutely clear that we favour greater restrictions, but there is no point in supporting proposals which clearly would be unacceptable to those countries which do the fishing. That could result in no obligation on the part of those countries to apply restrictions.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: Would the Minister agree that widespread concern has been expressed in many quarters that the fishing for salmon off Greenland may have a disastrous effect on salmon stocks? Is he in a position to say anything authoritative on this matter since, though one continually reads reports of the dangers, one is not sure of the weight to give to those reports.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This gives us great cause for concern, but what we can achieve can be done only by international negotiation. This is what we have tried to do in the Commission. What is clear is that the other countries concerned in this matter are already becoming much more aware of conservation problems, and I am hopeful that over the years we shall get even more co-operation than we have had in the past.
  Mr. Maclennan: Could the hon. Gentleman say whether Denmark is prepared to go along with these restrictions?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This is one of the difficulties. We must try to make sure that we achieve the maximum that will be observed in existing circumstances. We cannot force other countries, which are free agents, to adopt a solution which we would like and which we think best for our own stocks.

  Public Authority Works (Contractors)
  Mr. Grimondasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek powers to ensure that when contractors are doing work for one public authority in an area and there is other work of a similar nature to be undertaken by another authority, in the interests of economy and speed some co-ordination is arranged.
  Mr. Younger: I agree that such coordination is desirable, and I hope that the authorities will co-operate voluntarily for the purpose.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the Minister go rather further? It is bad enough to have one statutory authority tearing up a street in a town just after another has put it back. It is far worse in an island when machinery is moved away while another authority needs it for other work on the island. There is a great need for water on Eday and the scheme is not due until next year. In the meantime machinery may be sent to that island which may be useful. Will he see whether he can arrange co-ordination?
  Mr. Younger: I agree with the desirability of doing what the right hon. Gentleman suggests. The difficulty is that these contracts are let by different authorities and sometimes these contracts run for differing lengths of time. This is a matter which can be solved only by authorities getting together to discuss the possibilities. I hope that they will do so.

  Hill Lamb Subsidy
  Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will seek to introduce a hill lamb subsidy.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I consider that the hill ewe subsidy is a more suitable method of encouraging the maintenance of foundation stocks, particularly on the poorer hill land.
  Mr. Steel: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that his reply is disappointing in view of the encouraging remarks which were made in the Scottish Grand Committee on Tuesday of last week? Is he also aware that many people in the hill areas of Scotland believe that in order to compete with forestry interests there

  1413
  must be more finance, and that a hill lamb subsidy would be one method of putting in finance related to productivity, which the Government want?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman would look at what I said in the Scottish Grand Committee a week ago he will find that I said that we had looked at this matter and that it presented severe administrative difficulties. If a subsidy such as the hon. Gentleman suggests were confined to lambs, it would put at a disadvantage those farmers on poorer land who faced adverse conditions and who had a poorer lamb crop than others on better land. This point has a bearing on the matter.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: Could my hon. friend say what is the hill lamb subsidy in the Common Market?
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend will be interested to learn that, although lambs and sheep are not a commodity covered under the common agricultural policy at present, the French Government pay a subsidy for the retention of ewe lambs for breeding purposes.

  Corsbie Hall School, Fife
  Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the future of Corsbie Hall School in Fife.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: When Her Majesty's Inspectors visited this school at the beginning of June they found that substantial progress had been made. Most of the physical improvements suggested earlier in the year have now been completed. There are still some weaknesses in staffing however. My right hon. Friend proposes therefore to withhold final registration for the present. He will have the school inspected again in three months' time.
  Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is the most disgraceful reply I have ever heard in the House? Does he not realise that the reply which I received from the Secretary of State for Education in regard to English mentally retarded children at this school was that they were being withdrawn at her direction because of adverse reports by inspectors in the Scottish Education Department? Is not the implication of the hon.
  1414
  Gentleman's reply that he is satisfied, as is his Department, to allow mentally retarded Scottish children to stay in a school which has been declared inadequate by the English Minister responsible for these matters?
  Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is putting words into the mouths of Ministers. His remarks were uncalled for. My answer shows the care that we are taking on these matters. Furthermore, my right hon. Friend will be reviewing the position in the light of the latest reports by my inspectors. We are concerned to see that the arrangements for the education and care of pupils at present in this school are satisfactory, but our responsibilities in the matter are different from those in England. In Scotland it is the duty of the education authority concerned to satisfy itself that a school is suitable for the needs of the child. I have no power to approve or disapprove of the placing of children in a school.
  Mr. Hamilton: In view of the unsatisfactory, and indeed shameful, nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

  Domestic Rating (Quinquennial Review)
  Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will investigate the disparities that have taken place in domestic rating as between one area and another as a result of the quinquennial review.
  Mr. Younger: The valuations determined by the assessors can be appealed against and the final level of valuations will not be known until all such appeals are disposed of.
  Mr. Eadie: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that he has some responsibility in this matter since the method of quinquennial review is based on an Act of Parliament? Is he unaware of the fact that for a considerable time in the columns of the Press and various local government publications there have been widespread protests by domestic ratepayers against the high levels of rateable value and the valuations being proposed at present? Is there not a strong case for inquiry since he has given the

  1415
  impression that the people of Scotland would always be consulted by the Government?
  Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman must know that the system of rating and quinquennial review depends on the opinions of the assessment officer in each area as to what is the correct rateable value of a particular house. This is subject to the normal process of appeal and at this stage, when many of these matters are under appeal, I cannot comment on any differences there may be between one area and another. The hon. Member's point is valid, but it is not a matter on which I have power to intervene in regard to any Statute which lays down the rules.

  Public Works Programme
  Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what official organisations in Scotland have written to him urging the adoption of a public works programme by the Government as a contribution to easing the unemployment situation.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: The Scottish Trades Union Congress, and the town councils of Maybole and of Stevenston.
  Mr. Sillars: Knowing the concern about unemployment in Scotland, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends, in advance of the redundancies that we can expect at U.C.S., to launch a public works programme in the area likely to be most affected? If not, why not?
  Mr. Campbell: The S.T.U.C. has already suggested that work should be done on school and hospital building. Yesterday, I announced an additional hospital programme to which the Government will be contributing £5 million, and I also announced a special two-year scheme for house improvement in development and intermediate areas. The possibilities of extra schemes are under consideration.
  Mr. Ross: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the difficult situation that we face? Tomorrow we shall get the new figures. They ought to have fallen. However, if they are still over 100,000, we are in for a very black winter. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that what is required is a
  1416
  massive programme with a date limit which will concentrate the provision of jobs over next winter and so give the right hon. Gentleman time to sort out further programmes? Will he look at the position again? He will recall that the last Administration launched such a programme in 1967 which cost us more than he refused to U.C.S. only the other day.
  Mr. Campbell: I am aware of the contribution that public works programmes can make, but they cannot alone solve the difficult situation facing us. The Scottish Trades Union Congress was pressing us to establish a special development area for West Central Scotland. We did that in February. I should also add that we have recently given an extra £4½ million for primary school improvement during 1972–3. All these moves will help, but a lot more needs to be done.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Adam Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what maximum level of unemployment in Scotland would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government before a change in their policy is considered; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I cannot accept the implication of the hon. Gentleman's Question. Our first priority is to restrain inflation which has been crippling investment and so reducing employment possibilities. As that task is achieved we intend to deploy our regional development policies to the full to stimulate growth.
  Mr. Hunter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is being witnessed in Glasgow today, together with the intention of the T.U.C. to organise marches for unemployed workers, is reminiscent of the 1930s? Does not he realise that there is a great economic depression in the country, and will not he do something positive to protect the interests of Scotland rather than damaging them still further?
  Mr. Campbell: I am aware that most of those who appear to be taking part in marches today are not unemployed but are giving up their jobs for some hours and thereby possibly causing dislocation and loss of production in Scotland. I deplore the irresponsible attitude

  1417
  of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) in what he is doing to encourage it.
  Dr. Miller: Are we to take it that the maximum level of unemployment acceptable to the Government has been reached and that we shall see very soon a reversal of their policy, with more jobs being provided for the people of Scotland?
  Mr. Campbell: I deplore the present rate of unemployment. However, it has been caused by the weakening of the economy due to persistent cost inflation. Our policy is designed to put this right.
  Mr. Buchan: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the cool, levelheaded anger in Scotland at the present time. Will he confirm, for example, that, facing this position of unemployment in Scotland and other development areas, the Government have decided to send 10,000 jobs to Southend, a non-development area? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware of that decision? Did he oppose it in the Cabinet? If not, why not?
  Mr. Campbell: I am concentrating on trying to bring to Scotland industry of the kind which will help us to expand. The special development area established with the full support of the S.T.U.C. is an important contribution to that. But we must get an expansion of the economy as a whole in order to have the mobile industry which can be attracted.

  National Health Service
  Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now make a statement on his proposals for the reorganisation of the Health Service in Scotland.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: I am not yet ready to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) on 5th November last, but I will do so as soon as possible.—[Vol. 805, c. 453-4.]
  Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from the information that we have been able to get from him on request, for which we thank him, and apart from the odd Press statement, we have had no information about the reorganisation of the Health Service in
  1418
  Scotland? In view of the fact that this organisation is not unconnected with the reorganisation of local government, and that the two will have to be discussed in parallel, although, naturally, one will follow the other in terms of legislation, cannot we have a statement very soon, and certainly before the recess?
  Mr. Taylor: We shall reveal the proposals as soon as we can. The reason for the delay has been that wide consultations have been necessary and, in a matter of such great importance, it is essential to give organisations sufficient time to react, especially to the important, far-reaching proposals about the central organisation of a reorganised Health Service.

  School Building Programme, Lanarkshire
  Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what reply he has sent to the Lanarkshire County Council's request to carry out the school building programme for 1973–74; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: None as yet. My right hon. Friend expects fairly soon to let education authorities know their investment allocations for school building to start in 1973–74.
  Mr. Hamilton: Bearing in mind what the Secretary of State has said about stimulating the economy, does the hon. Gentleman agree that this would be a sign of good faith not only to the local authorities but to the people of Scotland and would serve two purposes: first, to give the unemployed jobs building the schools; and, secondly, to give to the local authorities some confidence that the Government intend to stand by what they say?
  Mr. Taylor: I accept the importance of an expanding school-building programme. We have already announced an expansion of the primary building programme. The hon. Gentleman can be sure that we shall do all that we can to get the best programme possible.

  Local Authorities (Boundary Changes)
  Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish

  1419
  a White Paper giving details of the boundary changes which Scottish local authorities have proposed to those specified in Command Paper No. 5483, February, 1971, with an indication of his views on these proposals.
  Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has received about 170 suggestions relating to more than 80 proposed boundary adjustments, and he is considering all these at present. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to publish them.
  Mr. Douglas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is a very disappointing reply? If he cannot publish this information in a White Paper, will he see that the views of the local authorities are put in the Library so that hon. Members may know those views, especially the excellent proposals submitted to him by the county council of Stirling?
  Mr. Younger: I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman says. However, to try to publish all this information would be a very difficult operation. Of the 170 suggestions proposing 80 changes, many are mutually contradictory. It would be very difficult to publish all of them in such a way that everyone concerned could make up his mind. I have undertaken to consider all these representations carefully and to consult some of the local authorities where further information appears to be necessary before a decision can be made.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the unanimous opposition of the Aberdeen council to the proposal that Aberdeen should no longer be a one-tier authority? If he will not consult my friends on the council, will he consult his own friends, since they are equally adamant in their opposition?
  Mr. Younger: I am aware of the very strong views of local authorities in Scotland about local government reform. They do not alter the fact that we must consider the proposals for change in a careful and calm spirit. As I said, we shall consult local authorities where we think that further information will be helpful to us.

  Nursing Education
  Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of children receiving nursery
  1420
  education in education authority and grant-aided establishments at the latest date in 1971 for which figures are available; and what percentage increase this represents over the figure for the corresponding date in 1970.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: There were 12,539 pupils receiving nursery education in education authority and grant-aided schools at January 1971, an increase of 17·8 per cent. over the figure for January, 1970.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: While thanking my hon. Friend for those figures, may I ask him to recall that the subject of nursery education featured in our election manifesto? Is he satisfied with the progress which has been made, and will he press on with it?
  Mr. Taylor: I accept that this is a very important matter. The figures that I have quoted are very encouraging and, through the urban aid programme, we hope to secure further expansion.

  Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy
  Mr. Gourlayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when a full orthodontic service is now likely to start in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy.
  Mr. Edward Taylor: It is not yet possible to say when this service will start. Accommodation in which orthodontic treatment could be provided is available in the hospital, but the South-Eastern Regional Board has not yet found it possible to allocate money to cover the cost of adaptation and running costs taking account of other urgent projects in the region.
  Mr. Gourlay: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this is another blatant example of passing the buck? Three years ago the local board could not find the accommodation. This has now been found by the regional board, but it cannot find the money. Will the Minister show some initiative and give some of the additional income which he is receiving from increased prescription charges to provide this full orthodontic service in Kirkcaldy?
  Mr. Taylor: I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter. I know that he has been pursuing it for some time. However, it is for the

  1421
  regional board to decide priorities and the allocation of available funds. The board is considering this project together with many other desirable projects in the region.

  Local Government Reform
  Dr. Dickson Mabonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received intimation from any or several local authorities acting together that further evidence affecting his proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland is to be submitted to him; if he will receive them; and when is the last date on which he will accept and consider such representations.
  Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend has informed the conveners of the six county councils in the proposed West region, and also Fife County Council, that he will consider submissions they have told him they are preparing about these areas. Fife County Council has said that a study which it has commissioned will be completed by the end of July, and we expect to receive the conveners' submission by mid-September.
  Dr. Mabon: I welcome that reply. May I take it that further submissions of substance from groups or single authorities will be allowed to be presented? At what date will the Secretary of State make clear his response to these considered submissions? We shall get into serious difficulties over the transitional arrangements if we do not have this decision.
  On a further simple point, may I ask whether the Government will consider the suggestion about putting the alternative proposals in the Library? Is it not a simple thing to photostat these proposals and to put copies in the Library for hon. Members interested in all these representations?
  Mr. Younger: I will certainly look into that possibility.
  I entirely agree about the need to take a decision on this matter. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to make known his decision on these proposed boundary alterations by end of the summer.
  Concerning further representations, the hon. Gentleman knows that the original date was supposed to be 30th April, but
  1422
  my right hon. Friend made special arrangements to accommodate the authorities which particularly asked for extra time. I think that all who asked for extra time have now got time which is satisfactory to them.
  Mr. Lawson: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the consultations or considerations which have been given are genuine and that the Government have not made up their mind on the matter?
  Mr. Younger: Yes. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all consultations on local government reform are genuine and detailed and that we shall take into account every possible view.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how much notice he will take of the report of the consultants hired by Fife County Council at a cost to the ratepayers of £24,000?
  Mr. Younger: It is not for me to criticise their hiring or the cost, but I shall certainly take careful account of any representations made by Fife County Council.

  Fishery Protection Vessels
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has formed of the number of fishery protection vessels he will need in the light of the United Kingdom's proposals made to the European Economic Community about fishing limits; and the most effective kind of vessels for this work.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: It would be premature to make any detailed estimate at this stage. In considering the future of my Department's protection service in the light of the Cameron Report, I shall of course take into account the situation as regards entry to the Community.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these proposals, as we have them at present in Brussels, will certainly have the effect of very much increasing the pressure from foreign shipping on our fishermen prosecuting their livelihood within whatever limit is finally arranged? Until now there has been a certain buffer, which is in danger of disappearing. Therefore, we shall definitely have to consider increased forms of fishery protection if we are to go ahead.
  Mr. Campbell: We must await the report of my right hon. and learned Friend on his talks in Luxembourg. I should point out that in recent years the fishery protection vessels of the Royal Navy, in co-operation with the Scottish Office vessels, have had to police the belt between six and 12 miles because of the fishing rights which various European countries have had in that belt.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if, as appears to be the case, the six to 12-mile band has been conceded—sold out—by our negotiator in Brussels, it will more than ever be necessary to have fishery protection vessels in view of the threats of open warfare if these areas are entered by fishing trawlers from the Community?
  Mr. Campbell: Whatever the result of the negotiations—I cannot prejudge what they will be—the need to police the belt from six to 12 miles will in future be as great as, if not greater than, at present. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will pay an official visit to Glasgow and take the opportunity during this visit to tour the shipbuilding yards of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I was in Glasgow last Friday and I saw a deputation from the shipbuilding yards then. On the previous Wednesday I had seen representatives from the areas concerned with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and later in the Scottish Office. On Monday I attended the Prime Minister's meeting with the Scottish Trades Union Congress and I am attending another meeting with representatives of the area tomorrow.
  Mr. Lewis: That is all very interesting, but we have read most of that in the Press. What did the ship workers tell the right hon. Gentleman? Did they tell him that they were very pleased with the Government? Did they say that they thought that the Government were implementing their promises, or, like the overwhelming majority of people in this country, did they tell him that this Government ought to do something for the
  1424
  poor, the under-privileged, and now the growing unemployed?
  Mr. Campbell: They did not. They discussed constructively the difficult and serious situation facing us on Clydeside. They discussed what could be done by the provisional liquidator, and the present state of liquidation, and how the Government could co-operate with the provisional liquidator for a reconstruction of a healthy shipbuilding industry on Upper Clyde.
  Mr. Grimond: Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed that there is considerable disagreement between the account of events given by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and by Mr. Hepper? Would he either see Mr. Hepper to find out whether statements about cash flow, estimates of profitability, and so on, were made, or, if not, as this must be a matter of serious concern to the Scottish Office, at least press in the Cabinet for some inquiry into the whole history of the matter, from the day when the consortium was first set up?
  Mr. Campbell: The right hon. Gentleman will see from my speech in HANSARD a week ago what was in the letter of 3rd May from U.C.S., and other events. I shall not, naturally, repeat all that now.
  Mr. Ross: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his reply. He was invited to go to the yards. Will he go to the yards? Will he address the men and be questioned by them—he will be given a ready hearing—and try to persuade them that it was right to put Tory dogma before the jobs of thousands of men?
  Mr. Campbell: I shall do, as I am doing, everything that I can to help with this situation, which is most depressing for me as Secretary of State for Scotland.
  I am aware that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) is even now addressing a meeting of men who would be much better employed at their work, because leaving work is causing loss of industrial production in Scotland. As recalled in a letter in the Glasgow Herald yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister who ordered the Chairman of the Firth of Clyde Dry Dock to apply for liquidation. Can hypocrisy or cynicism go any further?

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Wage Settlement
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Minister for the Civil Service what estimate he has made of the cost to public funds of the recent wage settlement with the Civil and Public Services Association; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell): The recent settlement for clerical grades in the Administration Group added approximately £20 million per annum to the wage bill for these grades, an increase of 11½ per cent. This settlement, which is effective from 1st January, 1971, is firmly based on the evidence in the Report of the Civil Service Pay Research Unit of the rates being paid at that date for functionally comparable work by other employers in both the private and the public sectors.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is it true that the Lord Privy Seal committed himself in advance to accepting the findings of the pay research unit, however inflationary those findings might be, as indeed they turned out to be? If so, how does my hon. Friend reconcile this with the reiterated statements that it is the Government's intention to stand up to inflationary wage pressures in the public sector?
    Mr. Howell: My noble Friend and the Government have made clear again and again that they wish to stand by agreed procedures for pay settlements. They urgently wish that this was observed in other sectors as well.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: In his original reply the Minister referred to the relevance between public and private wage and salary increases. Will he explain why the Government always condemn any increase to the lower paid? When I asked the Prime Minister yesterday to condemn the increase of £3,000 a year on £2,000 paid to Lord Shawcross and other part-time directors of Shell, who admit doing only two days work per week, he refused to do so. When will the Government condemn the highly paid as well as the poor on a few pounds a week?
    Mr. Howell: That raises much broader questions which have nothing to do with the Question.
    Sir G. Nabarro: What has a lot to do with and is relevant to the Question is why the Civil Service, in this instance with a £20 million increase in pay and on other occasions with increases ranging up to 65 per cent., should secure these large advances with facility whereas Members of Parliament, who have gone without since 1964, are subject to interminable procrastination and delay in dealing with their very legitimate case? When will the Government apply themselves to their own kith and kin?
    Mr. Howell: As my hon. Friend knows, the Top Salaries Review Body is now hard at work and will report as soon as it can on this important matter to all of us.
    Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of continual unsatisfactory replies, I beg to give notice that on Monday next I shall raise this whole question on the Adjournment.

    Candidates for Government Posts (Conditions of Entry)
    Miss Fookesasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will take steps to ease the conditions of entry for candidates entering the diplomatic service and the Department of the Environment by waiving entirely the requirement that both parents of a candidate must always be, or, if dead, always have been, British subjects.
    Mr David Howell: This requirement no longer applies to any posts in the Department of the Environment.
    As regards the Diplomatic Service, the requirement is not in practice an absolute one. A candidate may be admitted to the Diplomatic Service by special permission of the Secretary of State provided that one of his parents has always been a British subject, that his father is, or was at death, a British subject, and that the candidate satisfactorily fulfils the other conditions of the Diplomatic Service nationality rule.
    Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I point out that one of my very able young constituents was so discouraged by this so-called escape clause, which my hon. Friend mentioned, that he gave up all idea of entering the Civil Service?
    Mr. Howell: I do not know about the general point which my hon. Friend makes. If she has a particular case in mind, I should be delighted if she would write to me and I will certainly look into it.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that it would be better to wait until the end of Question time before raising this matter. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has asked permission to answer Questions Nos. 44, 45 and 46 after Question Time. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the moment the largest industrial demonstration in Scotland's history is taking place. He will be aware, also, of the anger among all sections of the community on Clydeside, the trade unions, the churches, and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member has gone far enough. The answer is "No".
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on Questions. Would it be better to do it now, or later?
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would raise the matter now.
Mr. Lewis: Like yourself, Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House long enough to know that one cannot ask the Chair questions about the principle of transferring Questions.
I apologise to you for not having given you prior notice of this, but may I draw your attention to the fact that I put down a Question to the Prime Minister, dealing with a matter for which the Prime Minister is responsible. I asked for action to be taken that could be taken only by him. I asked whether he would arrange for free postage for the electorate to enable them to write to him on the question of the Common Market. There is a lot of interest in this matter, and as the Prime Minister is anxious to get the opinion of the electorate, I thought that that would be a good way of getting their views.
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member's preamble prohibits me from
1428
allowing him to continue further on this matter. The hon. Member began by saying that this was not a matter for the Chair, and it is not.
Mr. Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you must hear me until I have completed my question because, as you rightly said, what I have said so far is the preamble to my point. I agree that if the Prime Minister is asked a Question it is within his prerogative to transfer that Question to the Minister responsible for dealing with the matter at issue, but I submit that he is not entitled to switch a Question in such a way that the whole purpose of the Question is lost. That is what the Prime Minister has done, and I am now shown as having asked a Question which I have never asked. I am shown as asking the Postmaster-General whether he will receive letters. I do not want the Postmaster-General to receive letters.
The point I wish to raise is that when a Question is transferred the text of the Question may be altered, if necessary, but the Question should still ask for the information which the hon. Member is seeking. The Question should not be altered as in this case, so that it shows me asking the Postmaster-General whether he will make free postage facilities available for the electorate to write to him. The Prime Minister ought not to dodge the Question as he has done in this instance, or in relation to another Question on page 1194 of the Order Paper. The Prime Minister continually dodges and evades Questions by transferring them to Ministers who have no responsibility for the issues raised in the Questions.
Lastly, it is obvious to me that if I were to ask the Prime Minister whether he did or did not say that he would cut prices at a stroke, there would be no point in the right hon. Gentleman's transferring that Question to the Leader of the House, because we know that the Leader of the House never said that—he merely supported the Prime Minister in what he said.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I shall consider what he has said. If I can find any trace of order in it, I shall rule at an appropriate time.
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are considering the proposition put forward by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur

1429
Lewis), would you consider, also, whether it might be to the convenience of the House if some way could be found of enabling the hon. Gentleman to put bogus points of order to you in writing?

NORTH SEA OIL AND GAS
Mr. Michael Foot(by Private Notice)
The Minister for Industry (Sir John Eden): The national interest is adequately covered by the conditions governing the tender arrangements. In the event of success, the consumer will be protected by the normal market forces which apply under both methods of application.
Mr. Foot: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, first, that perhaps the best way of dealing with a matter of this kind is not by answering a Written Question late at night, at the same time as he is holding a Press conference and announcing, according to The Times report, a major change of policy, and that perhaps it might be better to make such announcements to the House of Commons, as has been done on some previous occasions in dealing with this matter?
Second, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give an absolute assurance that these new arrangements are still governed by Section 9, I think it is, of the Continental Shelf Act, which provides that the Government shall have the power to survey the prices at which the gas is offered, or the resources are offered, to the Gas Council, and that the Government retain the powers provided in that Act, and that those powers will govern all the tenders whether made under competitive tender or under previous arrangements under these proposals?
Third, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it is somewhat invidious that he should embark upon this major change of policy, on a matter which may involve
1430
hundreds of millions of pounds passing from the public to private pockets or possibly away from public industries, at a time when in another place his Department has been refusing to give answers on what is involved in the increase in price which the Gas Council has agreed to pay, and when the Government have refused to intervene on, or even to survey, an increase in price which has taken place in that area—as I say, perhaps involving millions and millions of pounds over the years? Does he not think that it is all the worse—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."]—when the policy involves a grave discrimination against public industry, and when the policy change involves a departure from the previous policy, under which it was guaranteed that the National Coal Board and the Gas Council, publicly-owned industries, should be able to participate in the exploitation of this great national resource?
Sir J. Eden: The question of a statement is, of course, a matter for the Leader of the House—
Mr. Heffer: Come off it.
Sir J. Eden: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has rather got matters out of proportion. What we are talking about in the competitive tender arrangements amounts to about 3 per cent. only of the territory on offer. It is of significance in order to give this country experience of the value of combining tendering procedure with the discretionary licensing arrangement which has always applied hitherto. All, or most, other countries have had the tendering procedure in operation for a long time. It is right that we should try, on a very limited front—which is all this is—to see whether it has relevance to this country. This is simply an experiment.
The conditions of the Continental Shelf Act still apply both to the tendering blocks and to the other blocks. As for the hon. Member's final point about the nationalised industries, what we have done is remove the discrimination in their favour put there by the last Government.
Mr. Skeet: I welcome the Minister's suggestion. Bearing in mind that experience is to be obtained in tendering, why is it not possible to put up at least 50 per cent. of the properties for tender?

1431
Will my hon. Friend give some intimation of the type of conditions which he has attached thereto, or circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
Sir J. Eden: The conditions pertaining to the blocks on offer under competitive tender are set out in the London Gazette of yesterday. The criteria applying to them are similar to the criteria which apply to the discretionary blocks; namely, those affecting the requirement that the companies shall be British-registered, that there shall be reciprocity of treatment with the country of origin of the company applying, the technical competence of the company applying and so forth. These things still apply to the tender blocks as to the other discretionary blocks.
My hon. Friend also asked why more blocks should not be put on offer. This is simply because we felt it right to have a limited experiment only, to see what the value of this was in the United Kingdom's interests. This is why it has been decided not to go further than the 3 per cent. of the total blocks on offer—15 in all.
Mr. Grimond: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that considerable quantities of oil and gas have now been found off the coast of Scotland and Northern England, and that these regions are in great need of new capital? Is he taking any steps to see that they in particular benefit from this discovery of wealth off their shores?
Sir J. Eden: If this wealth is discovered off their shores as the right hon. Gentleman says, no doubt it will be in the interests of those who discover it in the United Kingdom waters adjacent to those territories to bring it ashore at the closest possible point. It will then be a matter for the companies concerned as to what happens to it.
Sir G. Nabarro: I congratulate my hon. Friend warmly on this departure from the policy of the previous Government, all of which is exactly in accord with the policies of the Conservative Party. Would he bear in mind that there are almost limitless resources of natural gas in the North Sea, and that participation by a large number of competing bodies will probably engender a demand for great numbers of new oil rigs, all of which
1432
are capable of being built on the Clyde? Will he bring to the attention of his appropriate colleagues the potential for building oil rigs on the Clyde, instead of the traditional vessels in the Clyde yards?
Sir J. Eden: Yes, Sir; I will do as my hon. Friend suggests. He is right to say that, in addition to the actual work of oil and gas exploration, there is the immensely important back-up industrial benefit which flows to this country from this highly successful operation.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the hon. Gentleman take note—as I hope the Leader of the House will take note—that, although he may regard this as a minor matter, we certainly do not, that we think it is improper that it should have been dealt with in this way, and that we think it should be fully debated in the House, so that we can have all the facts about the gas price and how it was done debated openly in the House and not concealed, as the Government are seeking to do. We want it all out in public instead of done under the carpet as the hon. Gentleman tried to do it.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that hon. Members want to ask further supplementary questions, but I must say that my willingness to accept Private Notice Questions is inhibited by the length of time which they will take. This one has taken 10 minutes, which I think is enough, and other ways must be found of debating the matter. If it is felt that on every Private Notice Question there should be 20 minutes in which to ask questions, that would affect my judgment in allowing it.
Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order arising from your statement to the House, Mr. Speaker. May I underline the fact that in November, 1965, when the previous Government were making announcements on this subject, the Government at that time took the responsibility of coming to the House to make a statement. If that procedure had been followed on this occasion, it would not have been necessary for me to ask you to allow me to put a Private Notice Question. So I hope you will not take as any precedent the fact that this Private

1433
Notice Question had to be put down. It had to be put down because the Government were trying to deprive the House of facilities which were available before.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order Mr. Speaker, I should make clear to the House the policy which I have consistently stated and which I believe to be right. It is that we have to be very careful to safeguard the business of the House in the number of statements which are allowed after Questions. This problem has been faced by all Governments. I have made clear to the House my principle, which is that I seek to limit these statements to those occasions when I believe that they are rightly and necessarily required by the House. My judgment may be wrong. I am responsible for my own judgment, and I am very ready to stand up and face criticism on it. I told my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry to put the responsibility on me, because it was my decision not to have this statement—
Hon. Members: You cannot hide behind that.
Mr. Whitelaw: I am not hiding behind it: it was my decision. I find it difficult to know why I should be accused of hiding behind a decision when I am taking full responsibility for it. If I have been wrong, I can be criticised and am ready to be criticised. I was acting in what I thought to be the best interests of the House, as I still believe I was doing. I will certainly take into account the hon. Member's criticisms and I will bear them in mind in future. But very difficult decisions come to me on the question of what statements should be made and what should not. I did my best to act in the interests of the House as a whole.
Mr. Foot: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for detaining the House for one moment more, but this is a matter of some importance. I fully agree that it is difficult for any Government to select the subjects on which statements should be made, but the right hon. Gentleman did not tell the House that the Department had asked for a statement to be made on the subject
1434
and that the request had been refused. Further, I cannot believe that the Leader of the House authorised the Department to make the answer given to a Question last night in the House of Commons which purported to be a statement on this matter as a whole but which treated it as a trivial matter when, at the same time, the Minister was saying—outside the House—that he was making a major change of policy. Major changes of policy on matters involving hundreds of millions of pounds should be made in the House of Commons. I believe that, on consideration, the right hon. Gentleman will accept that view.
Mr. Whitelaw: I have nothing to add to what I have said, which is that I take responsibility for the matter. I take full responsibility for this and for the consequences which follow from it. I took responsibility for the original decision. I note what the hon. Member has said.
Mr. Orme: The question of gas prices and the consortium was raised in the House of Lords. No answer was given by the Government to any questions. Last night the Minister gave a Written Answer, and today he has come to the Dispatch Box, and he has not given any detailed answers about finance, profits or investments. In that case, hon. Members who want to press further questions upon him surely have a right to do so. The Government were deliberately denying us the information that we wanted.
Mr. Speaker: These all sound suitable matters to raise if some means can be found to debate the issue. I simply desired to make it clear that I was prepared to permit a certain amount of questioning but that, on the general matter of Private Notice Questions, it will affect the Chair very much if it is thought that every time one is allowed 20 minutes of the time of the House is to be devoted to it. I should be willing to allow many more Private Notice Questions if I felt that they would be dealt with expeditiously.
Mr. Eadie: You have made a pronouncement to the House, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that you are the servant of the House in this respect. [Interruption.] Mr. Speaker is the servant of the House, and he will not deny it. This issue must be cleared up. In view of the exchanges to which you have listened, Mr.

1435
Speaker, would you not now care to amend what you have said about Private Notice Questions? It is open to Government and Opposition back benchers to raise Private Notice Questions if they find that Governments tend to hide executive decisions. Back benchers must try to use the procedures of the House on occasions in order to expose clandestine decisions that Governments are attempting to make. I suggest that in the light of the exchanges which have taken place today, Mr. Speaker, you, as the protector and custodian of the rules of the House, may care to amend your statement in relation to debating Private Notice Questions.
Mr. Speaker: Of course I am the servant of the House, but I am entrusted by the House with certain discretions, one of which is to decide whether or not to allow a Private Notice Question and another is to decide how long I should permit supplementary questions to take. In this case, I allowed 10 minutes' questioning, which I think was not out of proportion. Of course I am not laying down an absolutely fixed rule, and I shall exercise my discretion from time to time. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his help.
Mr. Driberg: May I, with great respect, Mr. Speaker, ask you to keep reasonably flexible the Ruling that you have just given? Surely a Private Notice Question must be considered by the Chair on the merits or importance of the subject of the Question and not only whether it will attract a number of supplementary questions. Is not that so?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member. Of course that is a factor.
Mr. Palmer: You said that 10 minutes had been given to supplementary questions, Mr. Speaker. In fact, most of the time was taken up by statements from the two Front Benches, and it was impossible for back benchers to put questions.
Mr. Speaker: If I said that, it was not what I meant. I meant that 10 minutes had been devoted to the Question. I think that that is accurate.

INDIA AND EAST PAKISTAN
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I both had discussions on Monday, 21st June with Mr. Swaran Singh, the Indian Minister of External Affairs, during which he made clear to us the concern which his Government feel about the situation in East Pakistan and the very great burden and the danger to stability created by the massive influx of refugees into India.
Following the recent meeting of the India Aid Consortium, Her Majesty's Government are now making available a further £5 million in cash or in kind to relieve the economic burden on the Government of India of supporting the refugees. Like other members of the Consortium, we are giving this contribution over and above our normal development aid to India. In addition, a further £1 million will be made available by Her Majesty's Government to U Thant's appeal for the direct relief of refugees in India. The total amount of assistance made available by Her Majesty's Government for relief and rehabilitation in India will thus be increased to over £8 million. This is a humanitarian task having no relation to politics, in which I hope very many members of the United Nations will participate. About 23 have so far done so.
An informal meeting of members of the Pakistan Aid Consortium on 21st June considered reports from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund representatives who had been visiting East Pakistan and had held discussions with the Government in Islamabad. No commitments of new aid of any kind were called for, nor were any given, though all expressed their willingness to contribute to humanitarian relief in East Pakistan under the effective surveillance of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that projects already in hand in Pakistan must continue, in so far as this is possible, but that there can be no question of new British aid to Pakistan until we have firm evidence that real progress is made towards a political solution.

1437
Conditions in East Pakistan continue to be disturbed. It is with great regret that I have to inform the House that two British subjects, Mr. P. J. Chalmers and Mr. J. Y. Boyd, both of whom were working on tea-planting estates in the Sylhet district, have been reported missing. Despite attempts by British representatives both in East Pakistan and in India, and inquiries made through the Pakistan Martial Law Administration and the Indian Government, we have been unable to obtain any definite news of them. In the circumstances there must be grave fear for their safety and I would express the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure of the whole House, to their relatives in this country at this anxious time.
The President of Pakistan has reiterated his Government's hope that those who have fled across the border to India will return to their homes, and has undertaken that they will have no cause to fear should they do so. Her Majesty's Government have represented to him the importance of restoring peaceful conditions in which confidence can once again lake root and normal political life can be resumed.
Mr. Healey: First, on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, I should like to express our sympathy with the relatives of the missing men. As the right hon. Gentleman will realise from earlier debates in the House, hon. Members on this side congratulate him most warmly on the decisions that he has taken concerning aid to both India and Pakistan. We particularly welcome the fact that he has given £5 million additional direct aid to the Indian Government, on top of the existing aid ceiling, and that that is also in addition to the £1 million U Thant's appeal. On behalf of the Opposition, I share the Minister's hope that other Governments will follow the very generous lead given by the United Kingdom.
On the question of Pakistan, I cannot guarantee always to be in a position to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman so warmly, but I want to say how much we agree with what must have been a very difficult decision for him, namely, not to give any further aid to Pakistan until there is convincing progress towards a political settlement. On that subject I want to put one point. Does not he agree that by far the best way to initiate pro-
1438
gress would be for the Pakistan Government to release Sheikh Mujibur Rahman from gaol and to begin to negotiate with him as the only representative of the overwhelming majority of the population of East Pakistan?
The House may recall that that precedent was often followed by previous British Governments in similar situations, not only in Kenya, Cyprus and in the sub-Continent. We in Britain have never had cause to regret taking such action.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his general welcome for the statement I have made. On the political point, of what is to be the political future of Pakistan and the political structure, it would not be helpful for me to make suggestions at this moment in public. We have made many suggestions in private. The President is making a statement on 28th June. One would hope—and we have expressed this hope to him—that he will be able to bring together with West Pakistan the elected representatives from the East. We think that this is essential.
Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman has certainly made a very welcome statement, both on the increased British aid to India and on the refusal to give further aid to the Pakistan Government at present. I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question based on the communiqué issued after his talks with the Indian Foreign Minister yesterday. He spoke of a solution acceptable to the people of East Pakistan being necessary for a political solution to the whole problem of refugees. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has put to the Pakistan Government the proposal that some external body that might be acceptable to them as well as to the others be brought in to help supervise the situation there to see that a solution, when it is put forward, is truly acceptable to the people of that area?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is a very difficult question. I am not anxious to make public statements on what we have or have not said to the President of Pakistan. We have indicated—I joined with the Indian Foreign Minister in saying this—very clearly that there must be a political settlement which is broadly acceptable to the people of East Pakistan. I do not think that I can go further or even suggest that an external body would help

1439
in this situation. I very much doubt it. This must be settled by Pakistanis for Pakistan.
Sir F. Bennett: May we revert to the unhappy fate of the two missing British subjects? Can my right hon. Friend say when we first learned of this and when their disappearance is supposed to have taken place? Is there any suggestion that the Pakistan Army is responsible for this? If that were so, it would have a pretty profound effect on many of us who have done our best to maintain a balanced attitude in this matter.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am afraid that the facts are rather obscure about Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Boyd. There is some hope in that one or both are said to have been seen over the Indian frontier.
Mr. David Steel: I visited the family of Mr. Boyd at the weekend in Hawick. They will be grateful for the expressions of sympathy which the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have registered for them. Considerable distress was caused to the family by a most unfortunate report in the Daily Telegraph on Friday which stemmed, I am sorry to say, from the unofficial parliamentary delegation in Pakistan, to the effect that Mr. Boyd had been shot dead. This report is merely one of several conflicting and unconfirmed reports as to his whereabouts. May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman expects to receive a report from the British High Commissioner in India, who I understand has now received permission to visit the frontier area to make a search for these two men?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We are trying to do everything that we can to locate these men and obtain the true story of what has happened. It is extremely difficult to do this, but our missions in Dacca, Calcutta, Islamabad and New Delhi are now constantly trying to trace these men. The hon. Gentleman can assure the family concerned that every possible effort is being made.
Mr. Wilkinson: When will the Pakistan Aid Consortium meet again? I would remind my right hon. Friend that not so very long ago he said that the long-term future in East Pakistan was causing concern, especially the food
1440
prospects in a period beyond three months from now. This is a matter to which the Government and other Governments in the Aid Consortium should address themselves most seriously.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with my hon. Friend. This can be divided into two parts to some extent. The United Nations representative and team there are assessing the likely food needs in two or three months' time. It will then be for them to recommend what future financial assistance may be necessary, both from individual Governments which are willing to help and from the Consortium.
Mr. Stonehouse: Is the right hon, Gentleman aware that it has been known for some time that he has had a very sympathetic and humane approach to this question, and this has been confirmed by his statement today? Without wishing to be disparaging on the amount of £8 million, may I ask whether he is aware that this will pay the Indian expenses for only about eight days? May I ask, further, if he has seen the report in The Times today, from a very experienced reporter in Calcutta, confirming the continuing genocide in East Bengal? In view of this, will the right hon. Gentleman now undertake to take this problem to the Security Council so that effective action may be taken on behalf of the world community to bring this disaster to an end?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. I would not give that undertaking to take it to the Security Council. The Indian Government has made no such proposal, and I think that, therefore, we had better consider for the future, after the President of Pakistan has made his statement, what the chances are of large numbers of refugees going back to East Pakistan. It would certainly be premature to involve the United Nations in that respect.
Mr. Kilfedder: No doubt my right hon. Friend is aware that I have recently returned from East Pakistan and West Pakistan. I am sure that he realises that, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), I made no public report that one of the tea planters had been killed. Would not my right hon. Friend agree with the excellent leading

1441
article in The Times today, in which it is clearly stated that one should encourage the Islamabad Government to seek a political solution, which is the only hope for East Pakistan? Also, does my right hon. Friend realise that unless food goes into East Pakistan by the end of July, famine will be widespread in the province?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir, I realise this. This is why it is essential that the United Nations team should make a recommendation soon as to what will be necessary to supply food to East Pakistan. There is the additional difficulty of broken communications, which, for example, makes the area struck by the cyclone inaccessible except by sea. We are considering these matters. The great thing now is that journalists will be able to move freely about East Pakistan, and we should, therefore, get a balanced picture. It has been very difficult to establish the facts before.
Mr. Torney: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that many of the refugees would probably go back to their homeland if Government troops were withdrawn? If he agrees with that, would he consider making representations to the Pakistani Government, and would he consider persuading them to accept replacement of their troops by a United Nations force?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There must be a political settlement. There must be a civilian Government installed. It must be for that Government's administration to assess the situation. The hon. Member will recognise that only the army at the moment can deal with the distribution of food.
Mr. Crawshaw: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the situation will get worse unless confidence is restored in that part of the country. Unless the people there have a feeling of confidence that if they remain their lives are not at stake, they will join the exodus of the other people and the money which we are giving will be of no use at all. Surely, if the right hon. Gentleman will not take the matter to the United Nations, he might be able to make some suggestions about impartial people being placed in the country, to restore confidence and stop the exodus.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that confidence must be restored. To ask the United Nations now to make suggestions within the political context would not contribute to the restoration of confidence.
Mr. Robert Hughes: One of the two missing British civilians, Mr. Chalmers, is a constituent of mine. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement today, for the considerable efforts which he and the Foreign Office have made to try to find these men, and for keeping Mrs. Chalmers and myself informed. In view of the very great difficulties involved and the difficult job that the people in the area are doing at present, would the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, consider sending from this country a special search mission to the border areas to try to find these men? Despite the appalling suffering which is taking place in that area, the suffering of the dependants of one person is very important, too.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will consider any suggestion. We have everybody possible on the job of looking for these men. The Indian Government are co-operating because, although we do not know this for certain, it was on the Indian side of the frontier that they were last seen.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Am I correct in assuming that the Secretary of State said that when the supply of food is resumed to East Bengal it will be done by using the Pakistani Army as an agency for its distribution? If this is so, many of us would look at the situation very much askance and would fear that it would be used by the Army more as a method of politics and of discrimination than for the relief of famine.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The distribution of food will be supervised by the United Nations representative and his team. The hon. Gentleman should face the fact that as of today in Pakistan there is no other means of distributing food to the outlying districts than with the help of the Army.
Mr. Russell Johnston: As the Secretary of State says, a political settlement is absolutely vital in the end. Does the right hon. Gentleman see no scope for a joint Commonwealth intervention to assist the facilitation of a political settlement?
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That must be for the Government of Pakistan to say. The hon. Gentleman realises as well as I and everybody else does that Pakistan is an independent country. It must settle its own political future. Unless the political future is settled by Pakistanis it will not stick. If anybody can help, help is better given behind the scenes.

BILLS PRESENTED

  HOUSING BILL
  Mr. Secretary Walker, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Carr, Mr. Secretary Campbell, Mr. Secretary Peter Thomas, Mr. Secretary Davies, Mr. Julian Amery, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, and Mr. Paul Chan-non, presented a Bill to increase the amount of financial assistance available under Parts I and II of the Housing Act
  1444
  1969, and under certain provisions of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 and of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969, as respects expenditure incurred in local government areas wholly or partly within development areas, or intermediate areas under section 1 of the Local Employment Act 1970: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 199.]

  HIJACKING BILL
  Mr. Secretary Davies, supported by Mr. Michael Noble, Mr. Richard Sharpies, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Anthony Grant, Mr. Anthony Royle, and Mr. Antony Lambton, presented a Bill to give effect to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 198.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 1

  TIME LIMIT FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY
  For the purposes of this Act any property held by the Secretary of State in the state management districts in England or in Scotland which is not disposed of within one year of the original notice of sale shall be regarded as having reverted to the ownership of the Secretary of State for a period of not less than five years.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  It is right for the House to spend two more days on a Bill which is so vital to the national economy. Everybody knows the degree to which it will contribute to the solution of the pressing problems of inflation, rising prices, unemployment, and other national troubles of this Government's making. Clearly the Bill ranks as one of the Government's top priorities. Hence the two days that we have been given for its completion in this place.
  The original Bill provides no time limit within which the flogging off of these public houses and hotels to the paymasters of the Tory Party shall be completed. An enormous game of bluff is being played by the brewers. They have indicated that they are not interested in this property and that anybody who thinks that these properties are goldmines is out of his mind.
  Some of us on this side and one hon. Member opposite took the trouble, at our own expense, to perform our public duty and inspect our property in Carlisle during the Whitsun Recess. We visited certain of the pubs. We visited the brewery. Those who had a taste for the stuff drank it in limited quantities. We were impressed by what we saw. We understood from those on the spot that long before the election the brewers had been
  1446
  snooping around Carlisle casing the joint, finding out exactly what the loot was that was to be promised to them by a Tory Government.
  It is very valuable loot. The Central Hotel, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) and I stayed, stands on a very valuable site, apart from the value of the hotel itself. I understand that the site next to it, on which had stood a hotel, was sold to Tesco for £½ million. So the Central Hotel, presumably, which stands on a bigger site, would on the site value alone, if development permission were to be granted by the local authority, as it no doubt would be by the Carlisle authority, be worth much more.
  The original Bill instructs the Secretary of State, by Clause 2 as regards England and by Clause 3 as regards Scotland, to dispose of the property. There is nothing about a reserve price or a time scale—he must get rid of it.
  The purpose of the Clause is to give notice that, if the sales are not completed within one year of the original notice of sale, whenever that might be—presumably it will be after the Bill has gone on to the Statute Book—there will be automatic reversion to State ownership for a period of not less than five years. That is a reasonable proposition which the Government should readily accept. If we are to get through the Bill in two days the Government should rise quickly and say, as this is the essence of co-operation between the two sides, that as a measure of their good faith they accept the Clause.
  The experiment in public ownership of pubs in Carlisle, Gretna and the Cromarty Firth areas has been a success. Profits have been made. I know that the hatchet man at the Department of Trade and Industry may well think that they have not made enough, that they are rather drunk lame ducks, and that therefore they ought to be sunk. On going round Carlisle, and in particular one pub that we visited, I was much impressed by the fact that there was a bowling green attached to it. The pub was on a council estate. It was a community centre. There is no doubt that if the premises were taken over by a private brewer that bowling green—a social amenity—would disappear. It would disappear because it does not happen to

  1447
  make a profit. It is a service to the community. Indeed, we were told there that people who play bowls take a glass of beer on to the green and that is that. A private brewer would not be interested in that kind of activity—unless, of course, the bowlers took a barrel of beer out with them on to the green. It is this kind of problem that one should take into account in this matter.
  The Under-Secretary of State has never shown as much taste for this Bill as he has shown for the weak brews of beer foisted on the public nowadays. But he did his best in Commitee. He knows—because we quoted from the authoritative version of the brewers' bible, the Morning Advertiser—that the brewers intend to hold back. He knows that if the State is saddled for an indefinite period with the properties, questions will be asked by hon. Members opposite as to why the Government are not reducing the price in order to conform with the statutory duty to get rid of them. The only statutory duty in the Bill as drafted is to dispose of the properties. There is not even to be a reserve price.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman made a memorable speech to which we shall refer later. It was the Gettysburg speech of the brewers' loot Bill, in which he laid down the procedures he intended to take. It is interesting to note that he has not put them in statutory form. We are, therefore, faced with a situation where, if the Bill gets on to the Statute Book as at present drafted, the brewers will know that the State must get rid of the properties and that there are no safeguards whatever. It is true that there is something about the national interest—
  "…on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest …"—
  whatever that might mean. The Government might define that national interest as getting rid of the properties at any price. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman went a long way along that path by saying that it was not the business of the Government to be in the liquor trade. But, of course, the Government are in the liquor trade—to the extent of about £150,000 a year—indeed, more than that—which the Conservative Party gets from the brewers. So the
  1448
  Government need not say that they are not in the liquor trade. They are very much in it.
  The experiment at Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty has been going on for nearly 60 years. It is popular in Carlisle. The evidence we obtained demonstrated that. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), who also visited the area, would not dispute that the vast majority of the people of Carlisle are for the retention of the State management scheme.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that the majority of the people in Carlisle are in favour of retention of the State management schemes unless he has taken a poll. I have met many people in Carlisle who are opposed to retention.
  Mr. Hamilton: I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis). This was a major issue in the election in Carlisle. Indeed, the Tory candidate went out of his way to state categorically that he was in favour of the retention of the State management district and my hon. Friend had a very considerable majority. He is here for life now as a result of what the Government are doing by the Bill and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray), who is not in his place, will be out at the next election, partly because of this Bill, but for other reasons as well.
  The second half of the new Clause refers to a reversion to State ownership
  "… for a period of not less than five years."
  If one assumes that within the 12 months no sale takes place and the property therefore reverts to the ownership of the State for a period of not less than five years, we get a total of six years, which means that in the intervening period there will be a General Election.
  If we had a General Election tomorrow the Tory Party would be decimated. Very few right hon. and hon. Members opposite would come back to the House. Of course, the situation might change between now and the next election. They might not be decimated. They might be half-decimated. But there is no doubt that there will be a change of Government, and one of the propositions which I am sure will be in our

  1449
  manifesto will be something on the liquor trade. I speak only for myself in this, but I make no secret of the fact that my constituency party has sent a motion to the annual conference of the Labour Party calling for the nationalisation of the seven big breweries. If we get this incorporated in our manifesto and we win the election, I do not know what the Conservative Party will do for its election funds. It will be in very great difficulties. It will have to appeal to the marijuana lobby or to the pot lobby or to the bookies. It will have to get funds from sources other than the brewers.
  The five-year limit which I propose would give the electorate a chance. The Prime Minister is always prattling and prating about consulting the electorate on the Common Market. We want to consult them about the Carlisle pubs. The answer will probably be the same—they are against the Government offering the pubs to the contributors to Tory Party funds and against going into the E.E.C. That has nothing to do with beer in the E.E.C.—although, on second thoughts, it might, of course. I am not expert in that matter, so I do not know.
  If the Government do not accept the kind of time limit proposed here, I hope they will indicate that if at the end of the 12 months which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself estimated it would take to sell off the properties they have properties left on their hands, then those properties will automatically stay there. It would be a nice gesture, a conciliatory gesture, if he said, "If we cannot get the price we want, if the national interest would be jeopardised if we gave them away, we shall hang on to them for another period of five years." It is a reasonable proposition and I hope that the Government will accept it.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) began by saying that we would need two days to deal with this part of our consideration of the Bill. As he made his speech it occurred to me that it was the most ponderous speech I had ever heard him make during the time I have been in the House.
  Gone was the bright spritely "Willie" we all know, gone was all the cut and thrust of which we know he is capable. It seemed that he was really digging in
  1450
  for a long siege, and I felt that a good deal of his speech was superfluous because we have heard it all before. He repeated almost everything he had said on Second Reading.
  He repeated all the jibes we had before about the brewers—jibes which were so scandalously uttered at the Second Reading debate. At least his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has not had the face to return to the House today after the quite disgraceful speech he made on Second Reading. For small mercies let us be thankful. This is a most extraordinary idea which the hon. Gentleman has put forward in this new Clause. Looking at it, I can only think that it is a wrecking Amendment. It is clear that the only intention behind it is to hinder the determination of the Secretary of State to get this enterprise off the State's back. It seems that this new Clause is moved only for its nuisance value. I cannot believe that it is being seriously put forward and I will be surprised to hear that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) approves of it—although I will not be surprised if he feels that it is better, in view of his earlier views, to keep quiet.
  What would be the effect of this new Clause? The hon. Gentleman never told us. What would be the effect of saying that the Secretary of State must dispose of these properties within 12 months and, if he cannot, must hang on to them for five years? It would mean that the Government in carrying out this operation would be obliged to meet delays of 12 months. Prospective purchasers would be very reticent about coming to an agreement in the earlier stages of this 12-month period. Prospective purchasers would be tempted to hang on until the last few months hoping that the Government would be so anxious in those last few months to get rid of their properties that they might drop their price.
  Mr. William Hamilton Mr. William Hamilton indicated assent.
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He agrees that the price of the properties would drop during the last few months. I am glad that he agrees and it seems extraordinary for an hon. Gentleman to try to put the Government and the State in this position. Hon. Gentlemen are the first to come huffing and puffing when State industries are put

  1451
  at any disadvantage, yet here the hon. Gentleman seeks to put the State at a disadvantage. This proves to me that this new Clause is wholly mischievous.
  Let us see what would happen if it were accepted. Any properties not sold during the course of that first year would have to be held by the Government for a further period of five years. We know that the Government, quite rightly, want to get rid of the properties and to get these enterprises off the State's back.
  Is it likely that in the further five-year period any modernisation will be done? Will many improvements be carried out when the Government have shown that they are anxious to divest themselves of these properties and clearly will do so after the five-year period is up? Will there be any extensions or improvements to the bowling greens that we have been hearing about? The answer is clearly "No". There will be no encouragement if they are waiting for the end of the five-year period.
  If at the end of a year the Government have managed to get rid of a large number of the pubs and were left with the brewery and a small number of pubs there would be a wholly unbalanced operation with insufficient pubs and hotels to keep the brewery going. This is clearly an unsatisfactory situation. It is necessary that the pubs and hotels and other properties will have to be sold first, before the brewery itself is disposed of.
  It would look silly if the brewery was sold and we were left with some of the pubs, because it would leave some of the pubs in difficulties over supplies It is obvious that the pubs and hotels would have to be dispensed with first. The brewery must be left until later. It is typical of Socialist planning, to which we are so used, that the hon. Gentleman should try to foist a new Clause like this upon us, which would leave a wholly uneconomic and unbalanced operation.
  The hon. Gentleman gave away the intentions of this Clause, apart from the mischievous side of things. The Opposition are hoping that there will remain a residue of nationalised properties to be held over for a period of five years, which could form the base for future nationalisation. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are deluding themselves into believ-
  1452
  inng that a miracle will happen and that there will be a change of Government in the next ten years.
  If they are hoping to keep a residue of properties in the Carlisle area and in Scotland to use as a base for further nationalisation then we should be told that this is the policy of the party opposite. The public have the right to know whether, at the next election, the Labour Party manifesto will contain a pledge that the Labour Party will nationalise the liquor industry.
  I posed this question on Second Reading and got no answer. We must have an answer. The hon Gentleman has made a clear case for doing this. He said he hopes that it will appear in his party s manifesto and now I rather hope that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock will get up and tell us whether he will press for this to go into his party's manifesto. The country ought to know whether at the next General Election, to the added horror of a Labour Government there is a possibility of "Labour locals".
  Mr. John Golding: I would be very happy if these assets were to be renationalised. I have noticed that at union conferences, Labour Party meetings and at public meetings in recent weeks when any speaker pledges the Labour Party to renationalisation of assets they get a substantial cheer. When they add to this statement the promise that the greedy men who are now taking people's money will get their fingers burned, the cheers are louder still. We on this side should have no qualms about saying that we will renationalise those assets which have been denationalised by this Government. Nor should we have any qualms in demanding that that should be done without compensation.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): As the basis of the argument of hon. Members opposite in Committee was that we should sell these public houses to individual tenants, am I right in assuming that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that they should be taken from the individual tenant without giving him compensation?
  Mr. Golding: If the Bill provided for disposal to existing landlords and not to the brewers, if we on this side of the

  1453
  House were not conscious that the Bill rewarded the brewers for their substantial contributions to Conservative Party funds and if the disposal was to be achieved on different grounds from those envisaged in the Bill, our arguments would be different. We are not arguing against a Bill which has not been introduced. We are arguing against a Bill which has been introduced to reward the brewers for their substantial contributions to Conservative Party funds. We can discover from Tory Party balance sheets the reason for the talking among hon. Members opposite about denationalisation.
  For that reason, it is important, and would be in the interests of the people who might buy the pubs, that the assets should not be sold immediately but kept in ownership for at least five years, because we are confident that at the end of that time we shall be in government and we should adopt a very different attitude towards public money from that adopted by the present Government.
  I do not think there is any validity in the argument that the management of the Carlisle State Management Scheme would run down the assets merely because there was an outside chance of disposal after five years. That would not be the attitude of any landlord who expected to sell the assets for the best price he could obtain. Perhaps there would be a grain of truth in that from a party which was concerned, not with selling the assets at the best possible price, but only with disposing of the assets as a reward.
  For those reasons, I support the new Clause and I hope that our Front Bench will advise us to divide on it.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. J. R. Kinsey: The speech of the hon. Member Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) was a mass of contradictions. I do not say that he twists himself—I could never visualise him doing that—but he bends himself almost double. He argues first one way and then the other. He did it in Committee, where we were amazed at the rapidity with which his arguments changed during his lengthy speeches.
  First, the hon. Gentleman wondered why two days have been allotted to discuss the Bill. The reason is that we
  1454
  knew what to expect. Of the 30 Amendments and nine new Clauses which have been tabled, only two of them emanated from the Government side. That is why two days have been allotted to the Bill.
  The hon. Gentleman then referred to the importance of this matter. He said that the Government had put it before all the other major issues confronting the country. But we cannot accept that argument from hon. Members opposite, because we then come to the most important factor for them—the defence of nationalisation. What is the extent of the nationalisation with which we are concerned today?—170 unlicensed properties, 150 licensed houses and 10 hotels in Carlisle, and 45 houses in Scotland. The arguments of hon. Members opposite do no carry any weight.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that we should not get rid of these properties in 12 months. He talked about valuable sites worth £500,000 perhaps next door to hotels which would make the hotels worth considerably more than that. I do not envisage anybody holding back on development if the prospects were as good as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  The hon. Gentleman does not want these properties to be sold for another five years because he hopes that by then the Labour Party will be in office. He told us what his local association was doing to ensure that the public houses were nationalised. Apparently, the seven major breweries are to be nationalised. Good luck to his association. T hope that it gets the support of the Socialist Party for its policy. But nationalised Labour locals would be abhorrent to people. They do not want to drink State beer. They are not at all enamoured with that prospect.
  The hon. Gentleman then tackled the proposals of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for disposal. My hon. and learned Friend's proposals are fair, above suspicion and just, and I was delighted to hear them. They will cease to be fair, above suspicion and just if they are hacked about by the Labour Party.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) talked about greedy men. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State intervened to ask the hon. Gentleman about individual tenants, with whom I was concerned on

  1455
  Second Reading. Are they greedy men because they want to own their own businesses? No. The hon. Gentleman had better not go round the country saying that about people who are legitimately carrying on business. Are they greedy men because they dare to want to conduct their businesses in a private enterprise way and to do things for the country and themselves? If that is the way in which right hon. and hon. Members opposite think, they have a divisive nature and they will split the nation in two.
  Mr. Golding: Before the hon. Member sits down—
  Mr. Kinsey: I have sat down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): If an hon. Member does not give way, or when he sits down at the end of his speech, that is the end of the matter for the moment.
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I hope the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) is not losing his grip, but this is the second consecutive speech I have heard him make when he has not revealed to us one of his multifarious occupations and given us a fascinating glimpse into his experiences which have been and could be of such strength and value to us. I hope that this will be admitted to us in the course of the two days.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) got himself into a tremendous furor. I glanced through his Second Reading speech and noticed that he suggested that a number of houses should go to tenants or managers and be operated as free houses. I would refresh his memory of the Committee, where strenuous efforts were made by this side to try to make sure that this would, in fact, be possible.
  All through the Committee I tried to be fair to the Government—
  Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to my speech. I was delighted that in Committee my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that a certain number of these premises would be offered
  "at or near … valuation to the individual sitting tenant and he will be given, by private treaty, the opportunity to acquire should he
  1456
  so wish."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 392.]
  That is precisely what I asked for, and I am very pleased that my hon. and learned Friend was able to meet my point.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Read the Bill.
  Mr. Cocks: I appreciate the point which the hon. Member for Westmorland has made, but we made strenuous efforts to try to obtain from the Minister some sort of assurance that some of the money to be realised from the sale of the properties would be made available to tenants or managers who might wish to purchase to establish free houses, to free them from the grip of the brewers who offer loans on very low and diminishing interest rates. So it is not simply a question of valuation. We have impressed upon the Minister that goodwill should not be taken into the valuation because that would mean that an efficient manager, who had tried to build up the business, would be penalised and have to pay over the odds as a result of his own good efforts. I hope that the hon. Member will accept from me that we have been into this matter thoroughly. Even so, we are not satisfied that the Minister has done the very best for these people.
  Before the hon. Member's intervention I was saying that I tried to be fair to the Government during the whole of the Committee on the Bill, and indeed, when some of my hon. Friends were pressing the point which has been put very strenuously by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) regarding the motives of the Government in disposing of these properties, I put the view that the motives must be seen more as some sort of sop to be thrown to the forthcoming party conference in the autumn—as some form of disengagement from the State sector, and to show that things are really moving and that private enterprise is flourishing. I took it much more in terms of a propaganda exercise.
  However, I was disturbed when I visited Carlisle and talked to some of the people running the properties, because they told me that within a week of the General Election result being announced representatives of the big brewers were looking over properties and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West would

  1457
  say, casing the joints. This caused me genuine concern, because it did not square with what I heard previously.
  A further cause of concern was what I read in the Morning Advertiser—some remarks which were attributed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury talking about the problems of "the trade", as it is known, and he said that some problems turned out to be non-problems and he described, or was reputed to have described, the Monopolies Commission Report about beer as the "biggest non-event of the decade",
  During the Second Reading debate I pointed out the very serious monopoly position of Courage's in my own constituency. I fet at that time that there was some sympathy on both sides of the House with what I said and that something might possibly be done about that position. I am disconcerted if in fact the Financial Secretary actually said what he is reported to have said and if that is a reflection of the attitude of the Government, and, if it is, a great deal more pressure will be exerted from this side of the House to try and remedy the situation.
  I do not know that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West is quite right in referring to the Morning Advertiser as the brewers' bible, because it is concerned also with the problems of licensed victuallers. My hon. Friend will know that licensed victuallers are very often in dispute with the brewers over various points, and while I do not say that this applies to everybody, I think that some of the brewers' treatment of their managers and tenants leaves a great deal to be desired.
  To return again to Carlisle, the point made to me very strongly there was on this question of the return on capital about which we heard a great deal on Second Reading when a great many figures were put forward. I hope that the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) will once again discuss this matter and give us the benefit of his experience. It was put to me that the restrictions were such that these figures were not true figures of what the State brewery scheme could do if the restrictions were lifted. I was given as an example somebody, having great satisfaction from brewery products, who established a branch or business
  1458
  somewhere else but was able to build it up because of this restriction on the area actually served.
  I am still trying to help the Government in spite of everything, and so I support this new Clause very strongly, because I believe that another interpretation, other than the one which has been put on it from the other side, is that this is a Clause to protect the Government, and to protect them from the accusation of disposing of State properties at knock-down prices. I would have thought that, after all the charges which have been levied against the Government in this matter they would be only too glad to accept a Clause which would protect them from that sort of thing, and the charge of a forced sale of these properties.
  It is well known that a forced sale is a thing to be avoided at almost all costs. Hon. Members will remember that a couple of days ago the Financial Times had a supplement on the question of property and property bonds. Hon. Members will know that property bonds have been a popular form of investment lately. They have performed well in the ordinary share index. However, it is recognised that these property bonds, which are a form of unit linked insurance, are open to grave doubts, first of all because valuation is very much a matter of opinion; no matter how professional the valuation is, it is still, in the end, a matter of opinion; but also, whatever the valuation put on a property, in the event of a forced sale there is absolutely no guarantee that one will get the price or even anything near it.
  If it is known that the State is to dispose of these properties, and, moreover, is to dispose of them all at once within the space of a few months, the condition of a forced sale applies. I would have thought that the ultimate sanction, if the worst came to the worst, and if we think of the public interest being represented by getting the best possible price for these assets, would be, if we cannot get any reasonable sort of price, not letting them go. Why should we push the people who dispose of the property into the position of being blackmailed? Sir Hilary Scott's committee is investigating property bonds because of these weaknesses, and the weaknesses of this form of investment are equally

  1459
  arguments in favour of the Clause. The Clause also prevents properties going into limbo if they are not disposed of, and enables them to be held, and I cannot see the force of the arguments against this.
  5.0 p.m.
  I believe that the Government probably regret bringing in the Bill. The decision may have been made in the higher echelons of the Government with out a great deal of thought. Somebody said, "Just dispose of these State pubs to show that we are disengaging." The hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) has been left with an extremely unpleasant task, acting as butcher boy—
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Before the hon. Gentleman comes to the end of his speech, if I do not take up his challenge to explain the figures it is because I consider it to be out of order on this Amendment. An opportunity to do so may arise later. I understood that the hon. Gentleman was condemning the breweries for making advances at a low rate of interest. Is he suggesting that it would be more honourable for them to charge a high rate of interest for the loans given, or that they should not help private enter-price in the form of tenants and working-men's clubs who want advances to enable them to extend the business? Is he saying that the brewers should make no advances at all?
  Mr. Cocks: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's wishing to keep in order, and I hope that during the next two days we shall have the benefit of his accounting and financial experience. On the point he asked me, I do not think it is necessarily objectionable for breweries to make substantial advances, but I understand that advances are made on the basis that the house takes their beers, or at least a large proportion of them. If the loan is made on a purely altruistic basis, I am delighted to hear it. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on Second Reading said that tenants and management should have the opportunity to acquire the houses, and that they should be run as free houses. In those circumstances, it is highly desirable that a source of finance should be
  1460
  available to tenants or managers so that they could run a free house if they wanted to do so. If they wanted to tie themselves to a brewer, well and good; the money would be useful.
  The Bill is a pointer to Government thinking. I am astonished that this should be regarded as a matter of great priority. The Government will come to regret the Bill, particularly if the proper ties go for less than the generally recognised market value. New Clause 1 offers an escape route to the Government against charges that State property has been disposed of at less than market value—
  Mr. Idris Owen: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer this question? Let us assume that 75 per cent. of the premises under the management of the State board have been disposed of at the end of 12 months, and the board is left with a residual property which is not of much character. Does he consider that the remaining 25 per cent. would be a viable unit as an outlet for a brewery? Does he not think that it would be a loss-maker for the remainder of the five years?
  Mr. Cocks: It may be that outlets with small barrelage are not very attractive propositions. There are special problems here which were discussed at length in Committee, and I should not like to say anything which might prejudice the prospects of a brewery. In these days of rationalisation into larger units, there are difficulties in disposing of a small property, but there is a great deal of other property. The Arcade in Carlisle consists of a large block of property, and only one or two of the properties are not owned by the State management scheme. This site has great potential development. Once we start offering properties for sale we cannot think in terms of preserving any substantial viable unit. To attract reasonable offers, parcels of houses may have to be made up so that a brewery has a guarantee that it can acquire X number of houses. As the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) knows from his experience, these problems are almost intractable, and that is why it is such a pity that this proposal was ever made. I wish I could give a more satisfactory answer to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Idris Owen: There is not one.
  Mr. Cocks: There is not one, and this is one of the most unfortunate aspects. The Clause is a safety net for the Government and, even at this late stage, they may feel inclined to accept it, particularly as the Whip who was so faithful in Committee is here. Whilst one cannot always tell from their facial expressions what people are thinking, he has followed with keen interest our discussions about property disposal, and he is at the moment showing a complexion which, from our experience in Committee, we think may be favourable to us.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: As I was not a member of the Committee, I hope the House will excuse me if I mention one or two matters which have been dealt with in Committee. I cannot help comparing the doctrinaire attitude of the Government to the disposal of State pubs with their attitude to selling off council houses. The attitudes are quite different. The Government's attitude towards the sale of council houses is that the tenant should have preference and that a loan should be available to the tenant to enable him to buy the house. Many local authorities, particularly Tory councils, have widely advertised the sale of council houses and encouraged tenants to buy them.
  In the selling off of public houses the Government exhibit a different attitude. There is no great demand that public houses should be sold to tenants. The Government want to bring in a third party—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that this is not a Second Reading debate but that we are confined to the narrow terms of new Clause 1.
  Mr. Ashton: I am coming to the new Clause, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am now comparing the attitude on leases, covenants and other restrictions in regard to the disposal of other State property with the situation in the Clause which attempts to put restrictions on the Government for such State properties as public houses. A third party could be introduced into such sales; namely the brewer—on the same lines as if a third party, a landlord, were introduced in the sale of council houses.
  There would appear to be a difference in Government philosophy on this matter.
  1462
  Nobody suggests that council houses should be sold to landlords, but if council houses are sold to tenants, why should public houses not be sold to tenants? Is this all tied up with the fact that the brewers contribute so much to Tory Party funds?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has looked carefully at the terms of the Clause. I hope he will do so and will confine his remarks to that narrow issue.
  Mr. Ashton: I will come to the Clause in regard to the proposal for a period of not less than five years. We all know that there are good public house properties as well as bad ones. We should also remember that shops and private houses may also be disposed of under these provisions. The Clause covers all properties, not just public houses. If these properties are not sold in the first year, we consider that they should revert to State ownership. If this course is not followed, tenants will be in a state of limbo since they will not know whether they will be made redundant after a period of 12 months, and will be most uncertain about their future.
  Another aspect that must be considered is the transfer of licences issued to publicans by magistrates' courts. What will happen to these licences if after 12 months properties are returned to the State? If the property is in process of sale, what will happen to the licence? Will it be transferred to the newly-built public house which will replace the old one, or will the licence go by default and a new licence have to be applied for in respect of the new premises?
  There is a great deal of speculation in the area about the Bill's effects. The purpose of the Clause is to try to prevent some of this speculation and to allay the anxieties of tenants and people who own property other than public houses. Although this is a relevant matter, we have had no answer on it from the Government either in Commitee or today.
  The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) said that assurances had been given in Committee that a great deal of help would be given to tenants; but there is no specific proposal on these lines in the Bill. Tenants of public houses, and indeed tenants of other properties in Carlisle, have been left in a

  1463
  state of uncertainty. The Clause attempts to regularise the position by providing that such a situation will exist only for a period of 12 months. If at the end of 12 months nobody is interested in the property, then it will revert to the State.
  There is nothing wrong in this suggestion. When the State sells off Ministry of Defence properties, or when local authorities dispose of old houses or council properties, the State or local authorities lay down that if properties are not sold within 12 months, they are to be taken off the market and revert to the previous ownership. This is normal property dealing. An ordinary person selling his house may well say to the agent, "If you do not sell my house in six months, I will take it off the market." Why is such a procedure so wrong with State pubs? Why is it regarded as wrong for the Minister to say "This property is worth £50,000, and if it has not fetched this figure in 12 months, we will take it off the market"? What is the reason for the Government's objection to this Clause?
  Mr. Michael Cocks: Would my hon. Friend not agree that what any private individual in selling a house must try to avoid is to over-stretch himself in his financial commitments, and is this not the sort of situation from which we are trying to protect the Government?
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ashton: I agree with my hon. Friend. A further consideration arises when one of these properties cannot be sold for the price it is worth. Is it not possible that a cartel of brewers could get together and say "We will force down the price of a property by not making a bid for two or three years"? If this happens, some of these properties might well be closed for a considerable time. This may lead to these properties receiving the attentions of vandals, with windows broken and these properties becoming full of cobwebs. Will not the value of the properties fall if they are left untenanted for any length of time? We all remember what used to happen in the art auction world. When a painting came up for sale dealers got together and agreed upon a price to be paid for it and, because nobody else put in a higher bid, a "kill" was made in that
  1464
  way. I do not say that this will happen in this case, but there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that this will not happen.
  By putting forward this Clause we are trying to avoid waste of public money. We are also seeking to protect the people who live in these properties, whether they be shops or private houses or public houses. Finally, we are seeking to protect Carlisle from invasion by speculators who may be out to shut down the pub because it presents competition to other public houses elsewhere. If there are three pubs in an area and two are closed down, obviously the remaining pub will do a better trade. This will not be good for the consumer, who may have to go half a mile down the road to a pub he does not like because his local has been shut down to avoid competition.
  Therefore, we should be much happier with the situation if a public house or any other of these properties reverted to State ownership when not sold within a period of 12 months. This is certainly a situation that would meet with the full approval of the people of Carlisle.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the proposals put forward in the Clause. They are contradictory and do not achieve what they would appear to be trying to achieve if they wish to get the best possible deal for the State. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite object to denationalisation, the Clause will not give the best possible deal under the circumstances.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) was in somewhat of a dilemma in answering a question I put to him on this matter a short while ago. I am one of the hon. Members on this side of the Committee who have walked the streets of Carlisle in the past month. I have visited a brewery and certain licensed premises, and I have seen for myself that there are some properties which are desirable and others not so desirable. Indeed, there are some which are pretty shocking.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Name them.
  Mr. Owen: I am referring to the one near Mole Street, plus the one at the bottom, which is regarded as a pretty poor public house. It was pointed out to me as a bad example. Will not the

  1465
  situation be that anyone interested in a property will inspect it and decide to make a bid, or will make a bid with a view to purchasing by private treaty?
  It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that a considerable portion of the State asset might be disposed of by private treaty to the sitting tenants of small off-licence premises or the smaller pubs. It is conceivable that at the end of the magic year which is being discussed 75 per cent. of the most desirable property would have been disposed of, and we should be left with the remaining 25 per cent., consisting of the less desirable property.
  In such a situation, I am thinking of the brewery. Here is an asset that I should like to see protected.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Come over to this side!
  Mr. Owen: Let us consider the situation of the brewery. At the moment, its production capacity is 1,500 barrels a week. It has lost a considerable amount of that trade to the clubs, and at the present time its production is running at 1,000 barrels a week. Assuming that 75 per cent. of its trade is denied to it because 75 per cent. of the State houses have been disposed of, the brewery is left with a potential output of 250 barrels a week. If anyone suggested to the management of the brewery that it could survive on 250 barrels a week, I can imagine the answer that would be given. However, that is the situation that the brewery might be forced to face for five years, merely to maintain a doctrinaire attitude that we must not let go.
  I ask hon. Members opposite to look at the economic sense of their proposal, however sincere they may be as the main advocates of Clause Four.
  Mr. Ashton: But if the brewery was not sold and 75 per cent. of the pubs were sold, surely the situation would be the same? The brewery would be reduced to 250 barrels a week and be in very difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Owen: We shall come to that when we discuss the disposal of the brewery. At the moment we are discussing an Amendment which suggests that if the properties are not sold at the end of a year they are to be retained for a further
  1466
  period of five years. That is quite unacceptable economically.
  I appreciate that the main objective of hon. Gentlemen opposite is Clause Four, the nationalisation of all means of production, distribution and exchange. They are loyal to that clause. But their economic sense must not be blinded. It is ridiculous to suggest, as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has done, that the Amendment makes economic sense. I found the hon. Gentleman's arguments in Committee quite fascinating, but this is possibly his poorest effort. I do not know who encouraged him to move the Amendment, but he has been done a great disservice.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I am delighted to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), of whose sincerity I have no doubt. I was very pleased when he visited my constituency. I trust that he found my constituents friendly.
  I make no apology for taking part in this debate. The greater part of the State brewery and its subsidiaries lies within the boundaries of my constiuency, the City of Carlisle. What is more, I make no apology for my intervention, bearing in mind that I am an ardent supporter of the temperance movement. It may seem illogical to some people that I should have spoken as often as I have in our discussion of this Bill. I realise that I have an obligation to my constituents, irrespective of my personal views, and I know the social habits of society today. Therefore, not having abdicated my responsibility, naturally I put my name o the Amendment, and I am delighted to support it.
  I look upon the general principle of the Bill as one of public enterprise versus private ownership. I come down every time on the side of public ownership. In Carlisle we have under public ownership a greater measure of control than we shall have if this Bill becomes law and the pubs are sold. The North of England Temperance Movement is on record as having asked the Home Secretary to keep the State management scheme in being.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) is not in his place at the moment, since he has made a number of interesting interventions during our debates. However, I was

  1467
  amazed a little earlier to hear him accusing my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) of being hypocritical. He went on to say that the British public has the right to know what will be the policy of the Labour Party at the next General Election. I cannot agree more. But the hon. Gentleman forgot to say that never once during the last General Election campaign did the Tory candidate in Carlisle or even the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), suggest that the Government intended to denationalise the State management pubs.
  Mr. Ashton: Just like the Common Market.
  Mr. William Price: And free school milk.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: My people in Carlisle do not believe what the Government say. They promised to do a number of things at a stroke. If nothing else, certainly they are trying to sell these pubs at a stroke.
  The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that if the pubs are not sold in 12 months, they will be retained by the State. As a result of the introduction of this Bill, I now have one of the safest seats in the country. The hon. Member for Stockport, North, on the other hand, now finds his seat in jeopardy. Within the next five years we shall have a General Election—
  Mr. Ashton: This autumn.
  Mr. Ron Lewis:—and a Labour Government will be returned, and we shall be able to undo some of the wrong that this crowd is trying to do
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: At a stroke.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: At a stroke, yes.
  I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Westmorland once more in his place.
  Mr. William Price: He has been for a pint.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: We have been told that at the moment, the brewers are not interested. I must contradict that. They have spent weeks in Carlisle under assumed names. They have been round
  1468
  the pubs asking questions. They have been to the brewery. They are waiting for this Bill to become law, when we shall find immediately that they are in the market.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's views. Apparently he and his colleagues are disturbed lest we are not able to dispose of the property. He is now saying that the brewers are crowding in on Carlisle, desperate to get to the auction sale.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: They are crowding in because they are hoping to get it at a give-away price. We are seeking to protect the taxpayer. As long as we remain in this House I hope that we shall continue to protect the taxpayer. After all, the State Management Scheme is the taxpayers' business. I am anxious to retain this scheme because it produces the cheapest beer in the country. The beer produced by the State brewery is approximately a shilling a pint cheaper in Carlisle than in London.
  Mr. Golding: Ask the hon. Gentleman what the price is in Stockport.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I do not know what the price in Stockport is.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue prices elsewhere or anywhere, but will keep within the terms of new Clause 1.
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that two barrels of this beer were delivered to this House this morning with the best wishes of the State Management Brewery and hoping that we would sample it before coming to a final decision on the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must realise that far from that question arising within the scope of the new Clause, that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Ashton: On a further point of order. May I ask when it will be possible to raise this subject of the action of the Chairman of the Catering Committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members can find ways and means of

  1469
  raising most things without the assistance of the Chair.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I appreciate that the question of price—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is the prerogative of the Chair to assist hon. Members when debating a subject, either in Committee or on Report, by making available all reasonable matters which may assist them in coming to a decision on matters which have been raised.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but you must hear me out.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be entirely surprised that I get the gist of what he is trying to convey. However, it might raise a wide question whether his suggestion would be helpful or otherwise in assisting hon. Members.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: With respect, it is not within the prerogative of the Chair to decide whether something will or will not assist hon. Members. My point is that one can, and does, ask for papers and documents to be made available and Mr. Speaker often says that, with the aid of the Library staff, he will make available those papers and documents. Sometimes they are for, sometimes they are against, and sometimes they may or may not have any relevance. However, that is not for the Chair to decide. If the House feels that it is necessary to have papers and documents which may assist it to come to a decision, the Chair usually says that it will, through the usual channels—it may be through the Vote Office, the Leader of the House or the Services Committee—endeavour to make them available.
  I have been a Member of this House for almost 27 years. I have known dozens—in fact, hundreds—of cases when exhibitions have been laid on and samples, plans and drawings have been made available, with the aid and assistance of Mr. Speaker and his staff through the Serjeant-at-Arms, the Vote Office, the Paymaster-General or whoever or whatever it is. We have a Services Committee
  1470
  —I am on a serious point—we have the Leader of the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. However serious the hon. Gentleman's point, it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I bow to your Ruling about prices, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not in his place today. People in Carlisle certainly do not trust this Government. That is why I mentioned the price of beer in Carlisle and why I support the proposal in the new Clause that those properties not sold within 12 months should be retained by the State.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) reminded the House that his constituency party feels so keen about the Government's decision to hive off within the next 12 months that it has put down a motion on the agenda for the Labour Party conference suggesting nationalisation of the breweries. People in Carlisle feel the same way about it. In fact, we have put down a motion in almost identical terms suggesting the complete nationalisation of the seven big brewery companies.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not in new Clause 1 either.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I appreciate that latitude was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West. I was trying to augment what he said. If it was right for a previous occupant of the Chair to allow my hon. Friend to develop his point, then I claim the same privilege in support of what he said. We want to see the seven big breweries nationalised. People in Carlisle hold the view that if we nationalised the seven big breweries income tax could eventually be cut by about 2s. in the pound—
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: They would lose all their profits.
  Mr. Ron. Lewis:—because of the profits. Therefore, I certainly support the complete nationalisation—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has already expressed its view on the content of new Clause 1, and it certainly does not include this aspect of the matter.
  Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order. My hon. Friend was merely drawing attention to the previous old Clause Four.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will be able to do that for himself if and when he wishes to do so.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I should like to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North about the bad premises which he found in Carlisle. I repudiate what he said about them. The average pub in Carlisle is better than the average pub throughout the country. Some are better than others. When people who make allegations about the State pubs are asked to prove them, they are not forthcoming. Indeed, it was rather strange that members of the Locomotive Society of Worcester, whose president is the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), should make a visit to Carlisle to see the railway installations. A few days after their visit I received a stinking letter from a gentleman who said that the Carlisle pubs were dirty and disgraceful. When I asked him to produce the evidence supporting his statement he could not or would not produce it. I have since made inquiries and have come to the conclusion that this is a technique to try to discredit the State pubs in my constituency.
  Mr. Ashton: It is an attempt to bring down the price.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I promised the gentleman concerned that if he would provide me with the names of the public houses he had visited and found dirty and uninviting I would make a complete investigation. That was nearly three weeks ago, and I am still waiting for an answer. The only information that I have received is that the gentleman who made the remark is a sympathiser of the Conservative Party in South Worcestershire. It is no wonder that such allegations are being made about public houses in my constituency.
  This afternoon a number of hon. Members have made particular reference to a barrel of beer. I should like to make—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is no such reference in the new Clause.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Member for Stockport, North, who visited the brewery at Carlisle, referred to the barrels of beer
  1472
  that are produced there, and I am trying, in my humble way, to do the same, because if the Clause is included in the Bill these barrels of beer will play a very important part, indeed.
  In my constituency there are many public-spirited people, and they are not all in the Labour Party. I am sure that they would support the Clause which I am trying to support. One of these good, public-spirited persons, who in the past acted as election agent to a previous Tory Member of Parliament for Carlisle, thought that hon. Members did not know anything about Carlisle pubs. He there fore purchased two barrels of beer yester day and despatched them to London so that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member appears to be returning to a former course. I must ask him to return yet again to the new Clause.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I am trying to come to that, because we are talking about barrels of beer, and barrels of beer are connected with the new Clause. I there fore claim that I am in order. We are talking about barrels of beer in the new Clause, and within the precincts of the House there are two—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot go on on that tack, and he knows it. He must refer to the new Clause.
  Mr. Ashton: The new Clause says:
  "For the purposes of this Act any property held by the Secretary of State in the state management districts in England or in Scotland which is not disposed of within one year of the original notice of sale shall be regarded as having reverted to the ownership of the Secretary of State for a period of not less than five years."
  Surely it is in order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The new Clause says:
  "For the purposes of this Act any property held by the Secretary of State …".
  It does not say what the property is. Surely a barrel of beer is property in that sense, because everything within—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Ron Lewis
  Mr. Kinsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we be protected from facetious points of order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been no point of order so far.
  Mr. Ernest G. Perry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) said that the capacity had gone down from 15,000 barrels to 1,000 barrels. He went on to say that if 75 per cent. of the pubs were sold and 25 per cent. were left, it would mean that the barrelage of beer in the State brewery at Carlisle would be depreciated by that amount. The hon. Gentleman was not called out of order for saying that. I do not see why you should differentiate between what was said by the hon. Gentleman and what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman intends to imply what is suggested in that remark.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I drafted the Clause, and had clearly in mind not only the buildings, but the beer within the buildings—I was thinking of property, which includes everything—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member, as the promoter of the Clause, is trying to help, but that is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Hamilton: I am trying to help the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because only the drafter of the Clause can know what he means by the word "property". When I went to see the property in Carlisle, I did not just see the buildings. I saw the barrels of beer. In fact, in some of the pubs the barrelage was more important than the building. To try to distinguish between the buildings and what is in the buildings would make nonsense of the Clause, and the last thing I want is a nonsensical debate on an extremely serious matter. I hope, therefore, that you will agree with the view that when we discuss property we should be able to discuss also what is in the buildings, which is the beer.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think it would be the feeling of the House that the
  1474
  debate was going fairly wide on the Clause.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to speak to the Clause, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We are talking about property, and a barrel of beer is the property of the State, or of a private enterprise company, whichever way one looks at it. Two barrels of beer were sent to London yesterday. They are State property. Unfortunately, the Chairman of the Catering Committee has undone the arrangements that were made.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: Shame.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: There are two nine-gallon barrels of Carlisle State beer within the precincts of the House of Commons ready for hon. Members to taste. I do not have a licence, and I am not a barman. Perhaps I could seek the assistance of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey). I hope that the Serjeant at Arms will not search the vaults. The barrels are there. For the benefit of my constituent who sent this beer down for tasting, I assure the House that it will be on tap within the precincts of the House even if I have to ask the Press Gallery to take it over and distribute it to my hon. Friends.
  The Clause provides that if property is not sold the State will be allowed to continue operating in Carlisle, and that is what we want. That is what the majority of people of Carlisle want, and I assure the hon. Member for Westmorland that the majority to which I am referring is far superior to the majority which the Prime Minister is claiming in support of his policy for joining the Common Market. The majority of people in Carlisle want to retain State pubs. A General Election could take place much sooner than some people think. The people of this country, and certainly those in Carlisle, will not be taken in by anything that the Prime Minister says at the hustings at the next election. I see that we have the Government's second team on the Front Bench today. They are the juniors. Not one member of the Cabinet is here to support this proposal.
  Mr. Skinner: They are supping that ale.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: My people in Carlisle are chary of the dealings behind the scenes of the right hon. Member for

  1475
  Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw). Therefore, I support the new Clause.
  Mr. W. E. Garrett: This is a helpful and useful Clause, and the Government must be kicking themselves for not having included a similar provision. They should thank the three sponsors of the Clause for their original thinking. This will resolve the Government's embarrassment. Of all the Bills introduced since 18th June, this is the most embarrassing for them.
  Mr. William Ross: I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate the embarrassment which they were caused by the speeches made when they had to introduce a Bill to nationalise Rolls-Royce.
  Mr. Garrett: That pales into insignificance compared with the importance of this Bill in Scotland and Carlisle.
  The two Ministers on the Front Bench look happier tonight than they did during the many hours in Committee, when I was worried about their appearance. They seem to have got over the initial shock of our attack in Committee. By the end of today, they will probably feel very embarrassed again.
  The period envisaged in the new Clause will also help the Government to study the implications of the sale of these properties. One of the things which they have misunderstood—I am surprised that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department has not grasped this, since he is a legal man—is the time factor involved in valuation and legal fees. The time factor given in Committee was quite unrealistic because of the slow working of the legal and valuation professions, this useful Clause will give the necessary time to get a fair valuation for the taxpayer.
  We have been accused of being doctrinaire and nationalises for the sake of nationalisation. This is denationalisation for the sake of denationalisation. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), who, unfortunately, could not get on the Committee but who has made a speech today, which I unfortunately missed, must be embarrassed, because his constituents more than anyone enjoy the advantages of the State brew. He enjoys it himself.
  Mr. Jopling: With respect, the hon. Member has a short memory. He may remember that on Second Reading, when he was here—I believe he interrupted my speech—I said there were no State pubs in my constituency.
  Mr. Garrett: I wish the hon. Member would listen. I was talking of drinkers, not pubs. The hon. Member is an avid drinker of the State brew when he is in form—
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Because it is cheap.
  Mr. Garrett:—and when the price is right. He knows when he is getting value for money.
  It would be a good idea if the two Ministers got together with the Whip and quietly accepted the new Clause.
  Mr. Perry: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps my intervention a few moments ago was near the bone, but I felt that when a supporter of the Government had been allowed to speak about beer and barrels my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) should at least have been allowed to comment on that.
  My hon. Friend has had to suffer a sniggering and sneering campaign by several hon. Members opposite, as he has this evening. We know my hon. Friend's temperance views, but, despite those views, he is prepared to fight for the interests of his constituents. It is to his credit that he has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the publicans and consumers of Carlisle.
  Over a fortnight ago I put down a Question to the Home Secretary about the number of hereditaments that the Home Office owned in Carlisle and the environs. It was handed in as an Oral Question on 10th June, was transferred to the Written list and I received an answer dated Tuesday, 15th June. I had
  "…asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list all the properties under the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill which will be disposed of, and give full details of the hereditaments."
  My answer from the Under-Secretary of State was:
  "I will send the hon. Member a list of the properties concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 73-4.]
  At four o'clock today I was handed a list of the properties concerned; and it

  1477
  was only a list, with no details of the hereditaments or the rateable value. It did not say whether they were tenanted property or how much rent was paid. I asked for the full details and so far I have not had them.
  I must thank the Under-Secretary for the reply that I have had, however. He said that he was sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland would also send me a list of those in Ross and Cromarty. I have not had that list either. We should at least know what we are disposing of.
  But the Under-Secretary of State has given me a comprehensive list of 340 properties to be disposed of in Carlisle, of which 170 are licensed premises. The remainder, over 170, are not licensed premises and vary from brewery flats and houses to cottages and all sorts of hereditaments.
  In Committee we suggested a visit to Carlisle and Ross and Cromarty to see the type of property of which we were disposing. This was, of course, turned down. Unless an hon. Member went under his own steam and paid his own expenses he has not been able to see the properties whose disposal he was discussing in Committee.
  Mr. Garrett: Is my hon. Friend aware that several hon. Members on this side of the House went to see these properties at their own expense and in their leisure time during the short Whitsun Recess?
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. Perry: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that the whole House is thankful not only to those few hon. Members but to the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen)—who is not in the Chamber at the moment—who went at his own expense to find out about the breweries and the conditions in the public houses.
  Mr. Garrett: Has my hon. Friend any information whether the Ministers have been to Carlisle or to Ross and Cromarty?
  Mr. Perry: I have no information about that, and at the moment I should not want to tax them with the proposition that they should go. I realise that the Under-Secretary is a very busy man. He has conducted many Bills through the House and has taken part in many debates. He has done a very good job,
  1478
  and I pay full credit to him. We thank him for much of his work, I should not want to tax him with the task of visiting these places. He has officials who can do that. But when I see 340 properties being disposed of straight away—this enormous block of properties in Carlisle—I am concerned about the people who are occupying them.
  I am concerned with the tenants of tied cottages or houses. I hope that they will be protected. If the public houses are sold privately will the present tenants remain? I want an assurance from the Minister that no tenant will be evicted from his cottage or home simply because the owner had him on a tied cottage basis. I believe in a house-owning democracy, and I want to be sure that the present tenants of these cottages and houses are offered these places.
  In Committee we had some amusing moments, and we sat long hours, but this is a matter of great importance to us. We oppose the Bill, but we want to make sure that the tenants or managers of the public houses—the little people who are affected by the Bill—receive the right degree of protection.
  I want to refer to the breweries and the acquisition of properties under the Bill. The Library has looked out some figures for me relating to five of the largest breweries in the country. On 1st July, 1970, just after the General Election—I should not be so facetious as to say "just after the promises had been made to sell this stuff off"—the price of shares in Allied Breweries was 84½p. On 12th May, 1971—just as the Committee on the Bill began to sit—those shares stood at 125p, an increase of nearly 50 per cent. In the same period the price of shares in Bass Charrington rose from 85½p to 130½p, an increase of nearly 53 per cent. In the case of Courage's they rose from 79p to 115p. an increase of nearly 50 per cent. Watney Mann shares rose from 84½p to 120p, an increase of 40 per cent., and Whitbread's rose from 50½p to 70½p, an increase of nearly 40 per cent.
  I would not say that the increase in the values of those shares was related directly to the sale of these establishments in Carlisle, but there is no doubt that from 1st July, 1970, to 12th May, 1971, somebody made a fortune out of breweries.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: Being a man of few words, I did not intend to intervene, but I want to respond to the few remarks made by the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen), who is now absent from the Chamber. As an expert in rating and valuation—and heaven knows what else—he made some comments which interested me. They were strictly pertinent to the Clause. In parenthesis, I should have liked to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) into the stock market and conducted a little analysis on the prices of beer shares, but I am afraid that I might be ruled out of order.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North used a phrase which is quite traditional in valuation circles but which I have always regarded with a measure of profound suspicion. I am sorry that he is not here to correct me if I misunderstood what he said, but I thought he said that towards the end of the negotiations it may be necessary to dispose of the remaining properties by private treaty. It was the phrase "private treaty" which aroused suspicions in my mind.
  I have a great respect for valuers. Valuation is the most non-scientific of all the sciences. It is, perhaps, the most subjective of all the sciences, although it is wrapped in a great deal of esoteric terminology. One of my hon. Friends has suggested, quite improperly, that it is also the most lucrative. I have always seen a subtle connection between the degree to which a thing is esoteric and the financial reward that it attracts.
  As hon. Members have said, the Government have more or less committed themselves to disposing of these assets in a notional period of about a year. That raises many objections—objections that are all the more powerful because of the context in which this operation is to be conducted. The Government are not disposing of a few assets scattered around the country; they are disposing of assets of a highly specific character with a high degree of localisation. In Committee somebody—it might have been me, although I hate to repeat myself—said that we have here the classic case of what an economist has referred to as not so much a monopoly as a
  1480
  monopsony—a situation in which the Government are trying to dispose of assets on a scale that I had not suspected until my hon. Friend gave the figures. They are doing this as the sole sellers, faced with an oligopoly of buyers. That is an extremely good word. It is a little useful shorthand to describe the situation. I am referring to only six or seven of our great brewery monopolies. But this is the situation, however much this is disguised and however much this confrontation is described in other terms.
  As will no doubt be discussed later in the Bill, we are going to bring in panels of valuers, and these panels will operate in a true spirit of Adam Smith's invisible hand, the market economy, and so on, but on behalf of the Government, and this will be very well known to the brewers.
  Having studied all sorts of economics for quite a long time, I cannot see how this cat and mouse situation—that is all it amounts to—can result in anything other than a position for the Government, by the end of a period of about 12 months, of almost total capitulation. I say that because despite the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has talked about the value and attractiveness of these assets, we know only too well that as a package these assets have not a uniform attraction for the brewers and that this brewery will be closed. The only attractive assets might be, perhaps, the better hotels or pubs. So they have to look at a situation in which they say, "All right, we want these particular components. We do not want the brewery." Even though they are going round Carlisle in disguise, incognito, or in any particular form, I do not think that they are seeking—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Disguised as Ted Heath.
  Mr. Cant: That might be difficult. I am sorry if I have given offence. I withdraw that, because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks), I hope that I am a reasonable man and I like to be fair to the Government in all circumstances. I do not see a situation in which the brewers can be in any other position than one in which they are trying to take the assets over but to take them over, to borrow a phrase from one of my hon. Friends, at a knock-down price.

  1481
  This is complicated by the whole question of the process of valuation because with the best will in the world and with the most charitable feelings, especially if we have to accept that some of these smaller pubs will be disposed of to the tenants—I hope there is common agreement on this—the price of a pub can be anything. Anyone involved in local government knows that only too well.
  What sort of situation will arise at the end of about 10 or 11 months when the Government are desperate to get this deal clinched—because it is the only success they are likely to have during this Parliament—if their valuers do what, as professionals, they are almost bound to do and say that there must be incorporated in the price of even a humble pub an amount for goodwill? I say this because the only card of authority that I have to play is that as a chairman of a planning committee in a fairly large city, one often has to face this particular problem of buying a pub. If one were buying it as a normal fiscal asset it might go for about £1,000. But it would not be too far fetched to say that if one were selling it complete with its licence and its goodwill, as the tenants of many of these pubs in Carlisle will have to accept as a basis of valuation, it is not unusual for the price to be at least 20 times that amount—£20,000.
  6.15 p.m.
  In circumstances such as this, the valuers, acting on behalf of the Government and trying to do a job in a given number of months, will be faced with either breaching a principle, that these things should be sold to the sitting tenant, or enforcing the position in which they have to be given to the breweries at, in the aggregate, a much lower price.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North made one or two classifications of these pubs which I found interesting. He said that there were some good pubs. This was a great concession from the hon. Gentleman. He said there were some not so desirable pubs; and he said that there were some awful pubs. That was the sort of unique terminology that he introduced into the discussion. But who is to say which category these pubs fall into? We are moving into a period in which change is the keynote. I have no doubt that, at any rate, the anti-
  1482
  Common Marketeers amongst us will have read in The Times recently about some strange things which have happened. But these undesirable pubs, these remnants of what certain drinkers like myself believe were some of the good traditions in English public houses, with out the juke box and without the things that are called sophistication—
  Mr. Perry: And the topless waitresses.
  Mr. Cant: I cannot speak with authority about strippers or topless waitresses. My education is obviously incomplete. When talking about valuations, we have the situation in which some of these old-style pubs are fast disappearing, alas, from the English scene, and no doubt to a lesser extent from the more civilised country of Scotland. My wife reads HANSARD and I have to make this occasional concession to her.
  Whether we like it or not, we are part and parcel of this ritzy revolution in our pubs. The old pubs are being dismantled. Some are not being dismantled in the ordinary sense of being knocked down by bulldozers, but they are being taken down, outside and inside, and exported to the Common Market.
  Mr. Perry: My hon. Friend has again mentioned his wife. As he mentioned her in Committee, has she explained to him the duties of the Procurator Fiscal?
  Mr. Cant: That is something of a private joke, although before the Bill becomes law I hope to know not only who the Procurator Fiscal is but also the constitutional rôle of the Lord Advocate. I was merely trying to make the point in the serious context of the new Clause.
  In whatever category the hon. Member for Stockport, North or any other hon. Member puts a pub, in future a greater premium may be attached to the old-style pub; and middle-aged drinkers like myself may take their nightly refuge in the old style pub which the hon. Member thinks is very bad, highly undesirable, or whatever it may be—spit and sawdust and all.
  The Clause seeks to provide the Government with a safety net. Although the members of this Government are business men, although they no doubt have a genius for buying and selling assets, and although they are not prepared to do in the case of these State

  1483
  assets what they are prepared to do in the cases of licences for North Sea gas—that is, throw them on to the mercy of the open market or the mock auction—at the end of 12 months they may be in a highly embarrassed state.
  Beer defies all the traditional textbook illustrations of being a product with a highly elastic demand. Although there is a buoyancy about the beer market at present, and although, despite the increase in prices, the demand for beer continues to rise, so that the brewers' profits, even net of party contributions, rise substantially, no one can say when this may end. The Government may well get rid of these assets over the next 10 or 12 months in a market which will not be so favourable for their enterprise.
  In these circumstances, they would be well advised to have such a longstop provision. Unless the Government are prepared to tell the country that they have virtually given the assets away, they would be well advised to have a provision of this sort so that they could call a halt to this undertaking.
  I said in Committee that we should be more understanding of the Govern ment because they have had so few successes that they must be desperate to put one on to the Statute Book. Many of us felt a certain degree of incongruity in having to spend our time and dissipate our talents in Committee going through these Clauses when there were so many more important things to be done, but in this generous mood in which the Government find us we are prepared—
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: My hon. Friend has referred to party contributions. Many of us are ignorant of what he means. I wonder whether that question comes into this matter. Will he explain the point?
  Mr. Cant: I will not pursue that matter. It has been touched on from time to time. Doubtless my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will make another brief and oblique reference to it later. I merely said that, even net of tax and net of party contributions, the profits were substantial.
  I hope that the Clause will be accepted—I confess that this is more hope than expectation—by the Government in the
  1484
  spirit in which it is offered, because all that we seek to do is to render them this little service.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): In this wide-ranging debate on the Clause, the whole of which I have heard, I have heard little argument advanced by hon. Members opposite in support of the Clause. Many of the same old fallacies have been repeated. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) again expressed his view that for some reason only public houses owned by the State have bowling greens, and that private breweries do not run bowling greens in public houses. Next time he goes on a visit to Carlisle he may care to look in on the Runcorn division, where I can assure him there are many public houses in private ownership which have bowling greens, as there are all over the country.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) trotted out the old crack that he had only the second eleven to answer the debate. On behalf of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office I thank the hon. Gentleman, because in Committee whenever he made such references he used to describe us as the third-rate team that answered debates. I can only assume that we have improved somewhat as a result of the work we have done.
  It was fascinating to hear the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) express what I hope will become official Labour Party policy—that apparently, although individual tenants should be encouraged to purchase public houses, the Government should then be prepared to renationalise the public houses without compensation. I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman had read the Clause before he advanced that extraordinary argument.
  In case the hon. Member was serious when he said that he hoped that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) would invite his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Clause, I will remind the House of what the Clause does, what its effect would be, and what hon. Members opposite will be voting for if they are so unwise as to wish to advance an argument such as that put forward in the Clause.
  The Clause would provide, as I understand it, that the powers granted in the Bill to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Home Department and for Scotland to dispose of these premises should continue, that Clause 1 should be passed and, therefore, my right hon. Friends' monopoly position in these areas should go, but that if at the end of 12 months my right hon. Friends have not succeeded in disposing of all the assets, a moratorium of five years should be placed upon the assets which have not been disposed of, although presumably at the end of that five-year period my right hon. Friends could start disposing of the assets again.
  It is necessary to remind hon. Members opposite about the effect of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) used time and again the phrase that it was right that if these premises had not been sold within 12 months they should revert back to public ownership. He spoke of the possibilities of these public houses becoming cobwebbed and dilapidated as they lay empty waiting to be sold. The Bill means nothing of the kind. All it does it to remove the monopoly position of the Secretary of State in these areas and requires him to dispose of the properties held by him
  "…on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest.…"
  The Bill specifically provides, by retaining the powers under the 1964 Act to continue to trade in the area, that, until these public houses or licensed premises are sold, they should continue in operation with the scheme being run by the Secretary of State. We are removing the monopoly position of the Secretary of State but he retains his powers to carry on trading until disposal. There is no question of putting the premises up for sale empty for 12 months and then bringing them back to public ownership. They will remain in the ownership of the State until the moment of sale and will continue, under the powers of the Secretary of State, as part of the scheme until they are sold.
  Mr. Ashton: If a brewery were to move in and build a brand-new public house on an estate, which had an effect on the trade of existing State pubs, what would happen if those pubs had to cease
  1486
  trading because of lack of business and therefore could not be sold?
  Mr. Carlisle: Because of the monopoly position of the Secretary of State, a brewery which attempted to do that now would have to have not only a licence from the local justices but the permission of the Secretary of State. Once the Bill is law, however, since it affects the Secretary of State's monopoly position, such a brewer would be in exactly the same position in the State districts as he would if he wished to build anywhere else. He would be subject to the obtaining of a licence from the local justices and he would have to satisfy them that there was a need for the new public house. In these circumstances, it is not practical to envisage a new public house being built and putting other public houses out of business.
  Mr. Cant: But is it quite as simple as that? Once the monopoly power is diminished and a brewery is in a position to come in and build a new pub, it has to get a licence from the justices. It also has to get a licence from the local planning committee. What the local planning committee almost invariably does, as it will not deliberately produce excess capacity, is to say, "You can have this licence, provided you will give us three of the licences that already exist". That means that those three tenants are out of business.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman is right. I overlooked the fact that, if a brewery wants to build a new public house, it has to get planning permission. But I was asked what would happen to the State-owned public houses if a new public house was opened on a housing estate, and I was pointing out that, in order to build a new public house, the brewery would have to obtain a justices' licence and also, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, planning permission, and that applies in the present State management districts as it does to any other part of the country. The effect of the Bill is to leave the Secretary of State trading in the area until he has disposed of the property, as he is required to do
  "…on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest…"
  under Clause 2.
  The only purpose of new Clause 1 is to ensure that if, at the end of 12 months, the Government have not sold all the

  1487
  properties, they must not attempt to sell the remaining premises for five years. It is difficult to see the logical justification for such an argument. Nor is there an economic justification. I thought that hon. Members opposite would say, as they said in Committee, that because I had mentioned that we hoped to complete the sale within 12 months, I was going so far as to suggest that we were committed to sale within 12 months and that there would be pressure on us to sell. But hon. Members opposite have literally stood that argument on its head.
  Rather than being under pressure to sell unless we have new Clause 1, the reverse is the case. As the Bill is drafted, there is no time limit within which the Secretary of State may sell. All there is is a general requirement on him to sell
  "…on terms … expedient in the public interest…"
  Our estimate is that to sell all the numerous properties will take about 12 months. We might take less time than that; we may take longer. But we shall do it on the terms which are expedient. The effect of new Clause 1 would be that everyone would hold back. They would see that the Secretary of State was required to dispose of the assets within 12 months or keep them for another five years. They would recognise that he would not want to hold on to the properties for another five years and would prefer to sell them within the 12 months. The pressure would be on the brewers to hold back until the end of the 12 months, when they could come to us and say, "You cannot hold out any longer. If you do not accede to our price now you will be stuck with the remaining properties for another five years".
  Thus, far from saving the Government from a forced sale, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Michael Cocks) suggested would happen, the effect of the new Clause could be to force the Government into a sale on inexpedient terms at a time when it would be to their advantage to stand out against the terms being offered. All the cards would be stacked in the hands of the prospective buyers, because they could wait until shortly before the 12-month period had elapsed and then say, "Sell now or you will have to keep them for another five years".
  1488
  Looking at this as a matter of expediency, if, for example, we had sold 90 per cent. of the premises within the 12 months, there would be tremendous pressure on us to get rid of the remaining 10 per cent. before the fatal date was reached because the Secretary of State would not want to keep the remaining 10 per cent. for another five years, with all the cost of running them that would have to come from the return that they would get. Far from being a safeguard against the Government being forced into a sale, the new Clause would force the Government into a sale against their will. It would be likely to reduce the price that the Government could get on behalf of the tax payers rather than increase it.
  That is my main argument against the new Clause and I am sure that, if the Opposition reflect upon it, they will realise that it would be economic nonsense to put it into the Bill when the Bill already puts a duty on the Secretary of State to dispose on terms which appeared expedient to him. This point was made effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) and other of my hon. Friends.
  I take the other point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach). Let us imagine that, as envisaged by the new Clause, we have got to the end of the 12 months and sold 75 per cent. of the premises. What will happen to the remaining 25 per cent. which have to be held for five years? The brewery will be left with a number of uneconomic outlets.
  Mr. Ashton: That could still happen.
  Mr. Carlisle: It could still happen but there is a greater danger of it happening under the new Clause. Is the Home Office to carry on producing beer which cannot be sold and to keep those premises for five years? What real concern will there be to repair, maintain or improve those remaining public houses when it is known that they will be got rid of at the end of five years? It has to be remembered that the overheads will continue during that period.
  What is the argument in favour of this new Clause since I do not believe it to be justified on grounds of logic or economic sense? In the end it must come down to the remarks of the hon. Member

  1489
  for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). Within that period of the 12 months and the five years there may be a General Election and there may be a change of Government.
  Mr. William Hamilton: There will be both.
  Mr. Carlisle: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that because of his forethought the State will be left with that little rump of public houses or unlicensed premises which have not been sold off in the 12-month period? Is he really suggesting that it is his contribution to the expansion of State ownership under a Labour Government for them to find, if they were ever to take office again, that they owned six shops, seven hotels and three public houses in Carlisle and perhaps a couple in Gretna? It is a nonsensical argument. If the advantages of State ownership of breweries are so enormous, as has been suggested, I would have thought that he would be thinking on a much grander scale.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle, who has attended throughout every minute of our debates but who is not at the moment present, said that he believed that if we nationalised the public houses we would be able to reduce income tax by 2s. in the pound. It seems that he has got it wrong, because it is the corporation tax paid by the brewers which helps provide the money needed by the State. The Carlisle State Management Scheme pays no tax at all. If the effect of nationalisation was that the State lost all income from the breweries it would have the effect of increasing income tax by 2s. in the pound, rather than reducing it by that sum.
  The new Clause provides no protection, it reduces the bargaining position of the State as the seller of the public houses, and makes economic nonsense. It would leave a Government with a few properties left in an area which was no longer protected by any form of monopoly and which it was not in the interests of the public to run. I know that I will be chided for saying what I have said in Committee, namely, that I do not believe it is the duty of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to be running a few public houses in one particular area of the country. Running public houses is surely a matter for
  1490
  private enterprise, not for the State. If it is for the State, it is certainly not on the basis of this new Clause which would leave the State with a handful of pubs in one small area in the North-West of England.
  It came ill from the hon. Member for West Fife to comment about the importance that the Government placed on the debate in putting two days at the disposal of the House for Report. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was at the request of his Party that the two days were provided. Having listened to the standard of the speeches on this new Clause I think that the Opposition could have found a better use for the time.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I have heard that speech somewhere before—I heard it in the morning, in the afternoon and at two o'clock in the morning. May I remind the Under-Secretary of State—when he talks about two days being provided for the debate we were only able to finish because I withdrew a considerable number of Amendments, to be discussed later, on Report.
  The Amendment deals with what happens when the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland begin, as they must as soon as this Bill gets Royal Assent, to get rid of these properties. In Carlisle the figure of more than 340 properties was given. It was the Under-Secretary who said that he hoped to complete this process within a year. That is 340 properties—about 170 public houses all in the same town—hotels and off-licences. If ever there were a buyer's market, there it is. It is bad enough to be in the position of having to get rid of these properties. Now the Home Secretary's deputy tells us that he will do it in a year, and that in advance of the passing of the Act, certain decisions have already been taken—and this applies to the Secretary of State for Scotland and as well—by the licensing bench in Gretna and in Cromarty Firth and the justices bench in Carlisle so that additional licences will immediately come into being. What kind of bargain will the State get out of this?
  The more the sale is concentrated in time, the more the nation will lose. What we are dealing with here is something that was valued some years ago at about £4¾

  1491
  million. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that there are certain embarrassments and difficulties for him in this? After all, he will be held responsible to the extent to which this is just handed over. He can reach the position, under the conditions which he has laid upon himself, when he must sell whether he likes it or not. He said—and I underlined the phrase:
  "on terms that are expedient."
  With all due respect, that is not what the Bill says. He as a lawyer, would know that such a term would be contested in the courts. But the saving words are put in
  "…as appears to him expedient…"
  It can be the most unreasonable price, but so long as he can say that it appeared to him to be expedient he is covered in the courts.
  Where are these properties in Carlisle? My hon. Friend the Member for Batter-sea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry) eventually elicited the information that there were about 340. Many were public houses in the old days, and more than 340 public houses were taken over by the State in 1915. Incidentally, I ought to point out that it was not a Labour Government at that time. This was not a scheme which began in the days of the Labour Government, and the Tory Party supported it then
  Most of these properties, some of which are no longer licensed premises, having been taken out of use as licensed properties, but retained by the State management, are in the centre of Carlisle. I have heard it suggested that two-fifths of the centre of Carlisle is owned by the State management.
  What wonderful opportunities there are for development and exploitation! The hon. and learned Gentleman has visited the State management hotel, so I was told, and saw the Angel Hotel, which was a temperance hotel, which was bought by Tesco, not as a hotel, but for development purposes. With development possibilities, these premises are very much undervalued. I am glad that hon. Members opposite appreciate that they are to be sold off and that the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have limited themselves to a year in which to get rid of the properties.
  My hon. Friend's proposal is that if, a year after they have been put up for sale, they are not sold, which gives about six months for the preliminaries and advertising and so on, they should be retained as part of a continuing State Management Scheme. That is what worries the brewers. It is said that the brewers will not buy. It shows the power of the brewers that they say that instead they will put up new pubs, acting on the comfortable guarantee that they will get licences.
  Hon. Members should keep reading the Press on this subject, for the Press is full of stuff about the brewers. We have a director of Allied Breweries, which has had an increase in profits of from £19 million to £23 million in the first 32 weeks of this year. The brewers are now getting a return for the hundreds of thousands of pounds which they collect and give annually to the Tory Party. They do not need to have their policy quoted in Tory manifestoes, because they have direct power through the chairman of the Scottish Tory Party—the chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries. The tie is as close as the name McEwan Younger, a nice collection of names connoting the breweries in Scotland.
  These transactions will be watched, and what we have tried to do in the new Clause is to protect the Minister. The brewers are not concerned about the Bill, but they are concerned about the legislation which it removes from the Statute Book. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been honest with us, he would have referred to the Clause which we were not able to discuss in Committee because of the speed with which the Government pushed the Bill through. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary will lose their power of management, but they will not lose their power under Section 102 of the 1964 English Act to be in the business and, so long as they are in the business, the brewers will not be satisfied.
  The brewers want the Government out of the business as quickly as possible, not because of the nice profits which will accrue from Carlisle—because they do not care very much about who owns the pubs in Carlisle so long as it is their beer which is being supplied—but because they are concerned about the power of the State to be in the business remaining on the Statute Book. That is the reason for speed. If the new Clause were accepted,

  1493
  when the Tories left office—and they will and the people of Scotland wish that the election were tomorrow—the threat to the brewers would still be there, and the threat of extension would still be there.
  One or two of my hon. Friends explained the complexities of valuation and striking bargains. I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to be able to tell us that, no matter how he sells the pubs, the brewery will continue to exist. If he reads the company report of Allied Breweries in the Financial Times this morning, he will see that it has been able to increase its sales not of local brews, but through the more economic and efficient use of a more national provision of different brews, and the country's tastes in beer will have to change to suit the brewers, regardless of what people may like. This is the way to the higher profits, and I gather that Allied Breweries are looking forward to the next 20 weeks with even greater glee.
  What will happen to the brewery? Will any of the brewers bid for it? If they do, what will they do with it? Will they not bid for it only to prevent it from falling into the hands of someone who might use it? Will they not probably close it down? This is an important aspect of the sale of the property. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware of the complexity of the job which he has undertaken with such glee.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the more offensive part of his remarks, to which I do not propose to respond, would he explain what he meant by his comment about influencing the licensing justices, which must have been implied by what he said about the brewers obtaining additional licences? Is he suggesting that the applicants for licences, brewers and others, will be able to influence the licensing court, to persuade justices to give additional licences, and that this is a responsibility of the Government? Is he saying that there is corruption in the courts as well as in the Government? If so, let him say so.
  Mr. Ross: I only report that the brewers said that they were not interested in buying, but would build their own new premises. They can build their own new premises only if they have a guarantee of a licence. I expressed my surprise. I
  1494
  should have thought that I spoke for all in saying that they have no right to take it for granted that they will be able to get licences. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us in a provision to ensure that there is no proliferation of licences following this deal.
  7.0 p.m.
  We are dealing with a situation which has been settled for about 60 years—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Board-man) should have been on the Committee with us. We would have enjoyed his presence. We have heard more speeches today from the Government back benches than we heard throughout our Committee sittings.
  Mr. Tom Boardman rose—
  Mr. Ross: Sit down. I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech.
  Mr. Ross: I am on my feet. The hon. Gentleman said that there was corruption. I hope that the shoe does not fit. He is speaking as a brewer. I am speaking as a member of the public.
  Mr. Carlisle: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can leave the matter there. He was a member of the Labour Cabinet. He was Secretary of State for Scotland and, I presume, among other things, had responsibility in the administration of these matters in Scotland. He has clearly implied that the brewers had the power by money to affect the decisions that they get from the licensing justices.
  Mr. Ross: I have not.
  Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman certainly left that impression. If he says that he did not intend to give that impression and does not believe that, he should clear up the matter by saying so.
  Mr. Ross: I have a very good memory of what I said, and what other people have said, as the hon. and learned Gentleman should know from our Committee proceedings. I said that the brewers had power of finance in respect of what they supplied to the Tory Party and they did not have to rely on manifestos to get their way with it. It is wrong and untypical of

  1495
  the hon. and learned Gentleman to seize on this point at this time and—
  Mr. Jopling rose—
  Mr. Ross: I have not finished. We are not in Committee. We would have enjoyed the presence of the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), too, in Committee. He might have done what other hon. Members opposite could not do—speak in support of the Government in the dirty job that they are doing.
  The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West said that he would not refer to any of my more offensive remarks. He and his party had better live with the fact that the brewers make very generous contributions to the Tory Party. It is as simple as that. If people are wrong to draw conclusions from the fact that this Bill was not in the Tory Party's British manifesto, where did it come from? [HON. MEM BERS: "The brewers."] The hon. Gentle man knows quite well that the objection of the brewers—
  Mr. Jopling rose—
  Mr. Ross: Not at the moment. The objection of the brewers is to the continuation by statute of the power of the State to do as was proposed in Section 102 of the Licensing Act—to supply and retail intoxicating liquor in England and Wales, and then relate it to a particular district. Not until that provision is removed will the brewers be satisfied, and it cannot be removed until all of the premises—and the definition of "premises" in the English part of the Bill relates to intoxicating liquor—are disposed of. Only when the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland by order get rid of the offending provisions will offence cease to be given to the brewers.
  Mr. Jopling rose—
  Mr. Ross: I wish to deal with the new Clause and the reasons for my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West tabling it.
  Mr. Jopling: This is a very important point.
  Mr. Ross: If it was so important the hon. Gentleman should have covered it in his speech.
  Mr. Jopling rose—
  Mr. Ross: I shall not give way.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has tried to intervene about six times. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) is not giving way. The hon. Gentleman must not persist.
  Mr. Ross: I shall come to the points made in some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite. If the brewers were asked whether they preferred the Bill as it is or the Bill with the new Clause inserted, I can assure the House that they would say, "Let us have the Bill as it is".
  When the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) suggested that the property would be allowed to decay, he was speaking only for himself. Certain restrictions may well have been placed on State management in the latter days of the Conservative Party's 13 years of office when the Tories in Scotland were putting on the pressure. The pressure to get rid of State management in Gretna and in the Cromarty Firth came from the Scottish Tories. But let them go and see these properties. I think that the hon. Member for Stockport, North would agree that certain of the properties in Carlisle—some of them old, some of them very new—were a credit to any business and a considerable attraction. But if the Minister hamstrings himself by selling them all at once the State will not get the best bargain.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was a wrecking and mischievous new Clause. It is not, and it is not so intended.
  Mr. Carlisle: Of course it is.
  Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman may continue to say, "Of course it is". To my mind, it is protective and helpful from the point of view of the State and of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary. He said that the public have a right to know about these matters. He referred to what we would do if there was a General Election. Does he not think that the public in Carlisle had a right to know that the Government would do this? Does he deny the fact referred to by my hon. Friend the Membere for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) that the Tory candidate there went out of his way to say that the Conservatives would not do this?
  Mr. Jopling: Answer my question.
  Mr. Ross: I am asking the questions at the moment. I am dealing with this Bill, not with a Bill which will come after the next election. It might have been better if the hon. Gentleman had confined himself to the Bill, but to be relevant might have destroyed his argument and robbed him of the opportunity of making a speech.
  I visited Carlisle with some of my hon. Friends. I do not know how many public houses I went into within about three hours. The only other day, Mr. President—[Interruption.] I am already talking in French terms. The only day with which I can compare it was when, with Eric Linklater and Jack House, I visited seven distilleries on Islay in one afternoon.
  In Carlisle we met the people concerned during out visit. The Government should stop to consider whether, in their rush to dispose of these properties, they will be unfair to individuals. The most exaggerated phrase I have heard today was that used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who said that the Minister's proposals were fair, just and above suspicion. There are no proposals in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which one could call a proposal. There is only a power given to the Government, and how they carry it out I do not know. I would like to think they would be fair. [Interruption.] Is the Under-Secretary of State suggesting that there are proposals in this Bill? There are no proposals in this Bill. It is not as though it were even very long. It would take me five minutes to read out the whole thing, and there is no proposal in it. All it says is:
  "The Secretary of State shall dispose of property held by him for the purposes of Part V of the Act … on such terms as appear to him expedient in the public interest…".
  We invited him at various times, and will again, to put, in a Schedule to the Bill, what the proposals are, but till that comes it is quite wrong for anyone to say that the proposals are fair, just and above suspicion.
  I sincerely hope that my hon. Friends will join me in the Lobby, because I think this new Clause is necessary and desirable. The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about "more than a year", and that was the first time he has ever done that, but I think we should decide this by going into the Lobby.
  Mr. Spriggs: Would my right hon. Friend deal with the point about the brewers' contributions to Tory Party funds? This is causing a great deal of disquiet in the country and it is one of the points which ought to be explained—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be right in his last observation—but not on this new Clause.
  Mr. Ross: I hope that we shall get an opportunity to do that. I am sorry that one of our new Clauses relating directly to this has not been selected, but I think that there may be occasions during the evening when we may be able to advert to this and be in order.
  However, as to this new Clause, I advise my hon. Friends to support it.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I shall not be a minute, but I believe that the brief which the Minister read out was prepared for him by the brewers. The brewers do not like this new Clause, and that is sufficient for the Government.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 133, Noes 169.

  Division No. 389.]

  AYES

  [7.11 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Buchan, Norman

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Doig, Peter

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Carter, Ray (Birmtngh'm, Northfield)

  Dormand, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Ashton, Joe

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Driberg, Tom

  Atkinson, Norman

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Beaney, Alan

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Eadie, Alex

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Conlan, Bernard

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ellis, Tom

  Booth, Albert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Evans, Fred

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Bradley, Tom

  de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Lawson, George

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Galpern, Sir Meyer

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Ginsburg, David

  Leonard, Dick

  Rankin, John

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Hamling, William

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Sandelson, Neville

  Hardy, Peter

  McBride, Neil

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Harper, Joseph

  McCann, John

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

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sillars, James

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Silverman, Julius

  Horam, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Marsden, F.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Taverne, Dick

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Tinn, James

  Hunter, Adam

  Mendelson, John

  Torney, Tom

  lrvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)

  Millan, Bruce

  Varley, Eric G.

  Janner, Greville

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ogden, Eric

  Whitlock, William

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Woof, Robert

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Palmer, Arthur

  Kelley, Richard

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kinnock, Neil

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. John Golding and

  Lamond, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Mr. James Hamilton.

  Latham, Arthur

  Perry, Ernest G.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Fell, Anthony

  McLaren, Martin

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Astor, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mather, Carol

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Fowler, Norman

  Maude, Angus

  Bell, Ronald

  Fox, Marcus

  Mawby, Ray

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Fry, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Benyon, W.

  Gardner, Edward

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Biffen, John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gower, Raymond

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

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Body, Richard

  Gray, Hamish

  Moate, Roger

  Boscawen, Robert

  Green, Alan

  Molyneaux, James

  Bowden, Andrew

  Grieve, Percy

  Money, Ernle

  Bray, Ronald

  Grylls, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Brewis, John

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Monro, Hector

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Gurden, Harold

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  More, Jasper

  Bryan, Paul

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

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

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Buck, Antony

  Hawkins, Paul

  Mudd, David

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Murton, Oscar

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

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

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holland, Philip

  Nott, John

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Onslow, Cranley

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hornby, Richard

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Clegg, Walter

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Cooke, Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Coombs, Derek

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Peel, John

  Costain, A. P.

  James, David

  Pounder, Rafton

  Critchley, Julian

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Crouch, David

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Curran, Charles

  Kilfedder, James

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

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

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Raison, Timothy

  Dean, Paul

  Redmond, Robert

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Knox, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Rost, Peter

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

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

  Emery, Peter

  Loveridge, John

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Eyre, Reginald

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Simeons, Charles

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Wilkinson, John

  Speed, Keith

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Spence, John

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

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Sproat, Iain

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Stainton, Keith

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Mr. Hugh Rossi and

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Waddington, David

  Mr. Tim Fortescue.

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

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

New Clause 2

  RESIDENT TENANT OR MANAGER
  (1) The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable secure that resident tenant or manager of hotels and other licensed premises disposed of by the Secretary of State under sections 2 and 3 of the Act, shall have the opportunity, if the business previously carried on on the premises is continued by the person to whom it is disposed, of being employed in carrying it on on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager so employed before disposal of the premises.
  (2) In this section the expression 'resident tenant or manager' means a person who immediately before disposal by the Secretary of State was either the holder or one of joint holders of the tenancy or was employed as manager of the premises by the State Management authority.—[Mr. Ross.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with new Clause 2 we should discuss—

New Clause 5

  EMPLOYMENT OF EXISTING STAFF
  It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State in the disposal of property under this Act to ensure, where the disposal is to a person who carries on the liquor trade thereon, that such person will give the opportunity of employment in that trade to any worker employed by the State Management.
  and

New Clause 7

  EMPLOYMENT OF PERSONNEL
  After disposal of property under this Act, it shall be the duty of the Minister to transfer those members of the maintenance staff such as decorators, plumbers, carpenters, and other ancillary workers, desirous of continuing in Government employment, to other Government departments, in view of the fact there are a number of buildings in the area at present owned by Government departments, which could be maintained more cheaply than at present by private enterprise.
  Mr. Ross: The new Clause has been prompted by meetings which I have had in Carlisle with tenants and managers. I was much struck by the quality of the personnel who were managing the Stale premises in Carlisle. They were a credit to the Home Department, which must have selected them. Many of them had spent many years in the State management agency going from one hotel to another and from one public house to another.
  It often happens that decisions which are taken in the House affect people's livelihood. Here the Government have introduced a Bill to dispose of property, and this in turn will mean the disposal of jobs. It is not enough to say to the holders of those jobs that they will receive Civil Service compensation, and I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is nothing about that in the Bill.
  I thought the best way to go about this was to try to get the Government to respond in the way in which we responded as a Government when we passed the original Act of 1916 which was continued in the Act of 1921, when the matter was reconsidered after the First World War. New Clause 2 is not a pale copy, but an almost precise copy of Section 106 of the Licensing Act, 1964, and of Section 84 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959. Section 106 reads:
  "The Secretary of State shall so far as is practicable secure that a resident tenant or manager of licensed premises acquired by the Secretary of State under Section 104 of this Act shall have the opportunity, if the business previously carried on in the premises is continued by the Secretary of State, of being employed in carrying it on on terms not less favourable than those appropriate to a manager employed in a business such as was carried on in the premises before their acquisition."
  The Under-Secretary of State will probably say that the position is entirely different because the premises were acquired by the Secretary of State; it was the Secretary of State who carried on the business and who had the power of

  1503
  employment, the power to appoint managers and to grant tenancies. But, remember, the words are as strong as they could be:
  "as far as is practicable secure".
  It is right that when bargains are struck in relation to the sale and disposal of these licensed premises the Secretary of State should again, as far as is practicable, at least make the effort to see that the persons who are employed and the managers are given the opportunity by the incoming purchaser to continue in business. Many of these people since the publication of the Bill on 3rd February have not known what to do. They have not known whether they would lose their right to compensation if they accepted another job before the Bill became law. The least we can do is to make this effort to ensure that their case for continuation of employment is made when the bargain is struck.
  New Clause 5 covers almost the same point, although it is phrased in different language. It says:
  "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State … to ensure … that such person will give the opportunity of employment in that trade to any worker employed by the State management."
  New Clause 7 deals with the special problem of people who are employed in the brewery. There are many skilled maintenance staff not only in the brewery but dealing with many other properties. We met representatives of these people who felt that they should receive consideration. In these days of high and rising unemployment it is not enough for compensation to be given, no matter how generous that compensation may be in comparison with what would be received in private business. The assurance of a job in which these people can continue their trade is of great importance.
  I do not know the extent to which the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) saw the staff associations and the trade unions of the managers of hotels in addition to those of the managers of licensed premises. I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite appreciate exactly what this means to ordinary people. These are men and women who have worked hard and given satisfaction, and about whom ex-Ministers in this House have expressed satisfaction, and
  1504
  they have a claim on us for special compensation.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I wish to draw particular attention to new Clauses 5 and 7. It is well known that a number of hon. Members visited my constituency during the Whitsun Recess, and we took the opportunity to meet as many members of the State staff as possible, members of the office staff as well as ordinary workers. All had a genuine grievance and felt they could not put much faith or trust in the Government. They asked for words on the lines of these Clauses to be written into the Bill so that these workers would be adequately covered in respect of redundancy pay, compensation and prospects of future employment.
  I wholeheartedly support the claims of my constituents in this matter. If the Government are genuine in their desire to do everything possible to help the people affected, then they should be able to agree to these Clauses. In March of this year, a Mr. Ross from the Home Office—he has no connection with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. William Ross)—visited Carlisle. He met the unions and those employed in the State scheme and promised to report back to them regularly every month. Since that time those workers have not heard a word from that gentleman, and they have been genuinely worried about the situation. They have asked me to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the undertaking given to them by Mr. Ross about reporting back has been ignored. These people feel they have been let down.
  I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will give serious consideration to the situation of these constituents who want to be treated as normal human beings and who do not wish to be thrown on the scrap heap. This is what could happen to many of them, especially those who are aged between 50 and 55. Carlisle already has a high incidence of unemployment, and the situation is much more serious than it was a year ago. Therefore, these workers are rightly worried and wish to see their pension rights safeguarded. Furthermore, those who wish to carry on in Government employment wish to be given the opportunity to do so.

  1505
  There are other Government establishments in the area, and the plumbers, painters and ancillary workers, as well as other staff, feel that the Government at least could examine the possibility of transferring those who wish to be transferred to undertake work in those other Government establishments. There are one or two workers who do not wish to transfer. Some possibly will receive compensation or redundancy payments amounting to three and, in some cases, four figures. I can appreciate their point of view, and I would not deny them the opportunity to act as they think fit.
  Many of the ancillary workers at the brewery have done a wonderful job, and their services should not be lost. They are seeking to include these provisions in the Bill so that their rights may be safeguarded. This surely is a reasonable request when one bears in mind the rising unemployment figures in my constituency. I know what unemployment is all about; I know what it is to sign on the dole and to tramp the streets looking for work. There is nothing more demoralising, and this could happen to these workers in Carlisle. If the Government ignore our pleas and these people are made redundant, then some of them may never again be employed.
  I make a personal plea on behalf of these people. Indeed, I have a moral obligation to do so. I would not be carrying out my duties to my constituents if I allowed this opportunity to go by without speaking on their behalf.
  If the Government are genuine in their desire to look after the interests of these workers as far as is humanly possible, I would ask the Under-Secretary, even though he is in the "second team", as it were, in his Department, at least to put out "feelers" to the Leader of the House, some of whose constituents could be involved in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman must bear some responsibility for the situation in which many of these people in Carlisle will find themselves towards the end of this year and the beginning of next. I beg the Minister to look sympathetically at this matter.
  Other workers with a grievance are the head office staff in the brewery, who are professional people who know their jobs. One of these staff transferred only recently from London to Carlisle and he is extremely worried about his future
  1506
  since he has taken on a mortgage in the area. I hope that the Government will not hide behind the usual Front Bench sort of reply, but will try to agree to some words such as these being written into the Bill to help my constituents in their genuine problems
  Mr. Michael Cocks: I shall not pursue the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), and certainly I do not agree with his description of the Under-Secretary of State as being a member of the "second team". The hon. and learned Gentleman has shown courage and resilience in our debates on this Bill, and many of us believe that the Home Secretary should be piloting it through Parliament himself. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman grasped at the Immigration Bill like a drowning man clutching a straw as it provided an excuse for getting out of this unpleasant task.
  I commend these Clauses as being unexceptional and putting into formal language what we understand to be the Government's intention. This is a human problem, and one of the saddest features of our visit to Carlisle was in talking to people working in the scheme, many of whom have put many years of honest endeavour into building it to what it is today. It was especially distressing to talk to tenants and managers who have living accommodation over the premises which they run. Most of it is beautifully kept, and it was sad to hear them speaking of the dreadful uncertainty hanging over them.
  I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will say that the spirit of these Clauses is the Government's intention. I am equally sure that he will ask us not to formalise it. However, I suggest that acceptance of the Clauses will lift the uncertainty, and, although negotiations and evaluation may drag on over a period of months, this simple crystallisation of the Government's intention into formal wording will remove a cloud from these people. Nothing destroys happiness and morale more than uncertainty about one's job or one's home. If there is uncertainty about both, a position is created which produces stresses which are extremely hard to bear.
  I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to make a concession because he agrees with our intentions and that, for the

  1507
  sake of the peace of mind of the people involved, he will put them formally into the Bill in these Clauses.
  Mr. Garrett: This is a humanitarian problem and, like both my hon. Friends, I feel that one of the advantages that we gained from our visit to Carlisle was a deeper understanding of some of the problems facing those employed in the State scheme, both those in senior management and those who are paid hourly.
  I cannot speak for Ross and Cromarty because, as I said in Committee, I am not sure where it is. I have still not had an opportunity to consult a map. However, in Carlisle it is sad to see the disarray that is becoming more and more apparent, especially among managers who have given so much of their time to building up healthy and thriving enterprises. I recall meeting one man who has spent 14 years building up a very successful adjunct to the tourist trade. One hotel that we visited had four luncheon bookings by coach parties from the South of England who were en route to Scotland and the Lake District.
  Mr. Ross: And Ross and Cromarty.
  Mr. Garrett: I have no doubt that they were going there as well. Those employed in the State management scheme are participating actively in promoting tourism, which both sides of the House are desperately trying to encourage, and we have to instil in the heavy hearts of those engaged in the scheme some degree of courage in the shape of a positive statement from the Minister.
  Then we have to consider the tenants and managers lower down the rungs. I mean the people who run the not so "posh" hotels and cater for the hourly-rated people at night and in the busy lunchtime trade. They, too, want some assurance about their future conditions of employment. I know that the last Government introduced the redundancy payments scheme and that there are wage-related payments associated with it. But these people want to know where they stand in the new set-up.
  Then I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to say a few words about the change-over period. In saying that, I appreciate that I am asking a great deal.
  1508
  But we have to keep the quality of people who are employed in the scheme and assure them that, whoever takes over, they will be given at least equivalent terms of employment. I have in mind the fact that someone who is a tenant at the moment may find himself working for someone else.
  We have also to consider the ordinary people, those who clean the pubs prior to their opening at 11 in the morning, the people on the sales side, the travellers, and those responsible for the quality of the beer. People in a variety of trades are engaged in the industry. They are all in catering, but they are involved in their own little kingdoms trying to maintain efficiency.
  I have never apologised for drinking State beer or going into State pubs. Certainly some of those in Newcastle are superior to many private pubs. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that during the transitional period those engaged in the State scheme will have their minds put at rest about their basic continuity of employment. I hope that it will be possible also to assure them that if by chance they are demoted, whoever succeeds them as their managers or employers will guarantee them the same standard of earnings. If we can provide assurances on those lines, we shall succeed in lowering the temperature in the Carlisle, the Gretna and, possibly, the Ross and Cromarty areas.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: We have all made our party political points, and I am sure that many more will be made in the remaining debates on this Bill. However, I hope that we all agree that these Clauses draw attention to what is probably the most humanitarian aspect of the problem. Certainly those of us who went to Carlisle were all greatly impressed by the quality of the staff running the State pubs and hotels, and we were deeply moved by their genuine anxiety about their future. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) will confirm that, but certainly that was my experience in both the brewery and the hotels and pubs.
  One incident which is prominent in my mind occurred at the last pub that we visited. It was "The Black Lion" at Durdah, in the constituency of the Leader

  1509
  of the House. We met the young couple who run the place. They have a young child. We saw their beautiful flat immediately above the premises. Theirs is a highly respectable pub to which anyone could lake his family. Those two young people are desperately anxious to know what safeguards they have under the new dispensation.
  I recall that the Under-Secretary of State made certain noises in Committee and gave certain explanations about the Government's intentions towards the civil servants involved in the State scheme. I hope that he will go further tonight and give the workers in Carlisle some of the assurances for which we ask. In that way he will allay their anxieties between now and the sale of these properties to private enterprise.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I have been impressed by the sympathy and understanding of hon. Gentlemen opposite for the staff in Carlisle. I visited various of the establishments there and went through the brewery. I was most impressed by the premises which I saw and by the courtesy and enthusiasm of the staff at the brewery. I, too, should be extremely distressed if they were made redundant as a result of the transfer of the brewery and the licensed premises
  I discussed this matter with the Board of Trade manager in Castle Street. He assured me that the staff were first-class. I was reassured by that, because the staff will be retained on their merit. It will not be necessary to write into a contract that they must be employed There is no doubt that all the conditions which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to write into a contract would only serve to inhibit the negotiators in getting the best possible price.
  The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) moved an Amendment in Committee seeking to ensure that
  "no such property shall be disposed of to any company which has in the years 1967 to 1970, inclusive, subscribed to any political party in any way whatsoever."
  That is a pretty onerous condition. The new Clauses and Amendments listed today are also full of onerous conditions and considerations. The more onerous we make conditions the more we tie the
  1510
  hands of our negotiators, who must be free to strike a good bargain.
  I know that my hon. and learned Friend will be as sympathetic and understanding as any hon. Gentlemen opposite in ensuring that the staff are dealt with fairly. I did not get the impression of any degree of despondency from the staff I interviewed. They were quite happy about transference and not unduly disturbed. The only despondency seemed to be that they were of the opinion that the holiday concessions in the State system were more generous than in the private system. However, they conceded that the standard of pay in the private system was higher. Some said, "We shall probably get more money in the private system but we may not get holidays as good as in the State system."
  Considerable incentives will be offered to the staff if and when they transfer to private management. There will be incentives to sell. The hon. Member for Fife, West mentioned the problem of the young couple with the baby. They will have nothing to fear. I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will make clear beyond any doubt that it will be a matter for consideration by the negotiators.
  We would be unwise to write too many conditions into a contract because we might frighten away people who were prepared to pay a generous price. I do not want the State staff in Carlisle to be treated ungenerously. They deserve to be treated generously. I have every faith that they will be treated generously and that my hon. and learned Friend will make it clear to anybody negotiating that that is expected.
  Trained and experienced staff are not readily available. Brewery companies have great difficulty in getting trained, experienced, capable, reliable and honest staff for their licensed premises. This problem has bedevilled brewers for many years. They just cannot get trustworthy, reliable and keen people. Therefore, no brewery company will dismiss these trained staff. I am happy to leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to ensure that the acquiring organisations are made well aware of our desires in that respect.
  I urge right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite not to press too many conditions to be imposed into the contract. By so doing, they will force down the price. I am sure that they do not want that.
  Mr. Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he tell me what he thinks of the wording in the new Clause,
  "shall so far as is practicable"?
  That wording was very carefully chosen. Does he suggest that that is too much of a prohibition to place on anyone seeking to sell property?
  Mr. Owen: I do not agree that it should be written into a contract.
  Mr. Cant: I had not intended to intervene, because, on balance I feel extremely pessimistic about this matter. I did not go to the brewery or to Carlisle because I had a hangover—not as a result of drinking but from the effects of 'flu.
  The Government have never been guilty of making a generous response to any human situation, and I do not expect them to do so now. I thought we would get a non-committal statement from the Minister, which would be slightly platitudinous and full of regrets, and I was prepared to accept it. However, we heard from the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) the authentic voice of Conservatism: "Do not interfere with those who are to make a valuation and determine the price; do not impose any conditions on what should happen to the staff."
  The Minister is not the architect of the Bill; he is just the executioner. He need not say anything, because we heard what was said by the hon. Member for Stockport, North. I regret this, but it is not a matter which fills me with massive surprise.
  Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) for his advice, but I propose to ignore it. I shall attempt to answer the debate in my own way.
  The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) in his semi-jocular, semi-serious remarks about me seemed to indicate that I was in the "second eleven" or something of that nature. That is not the situation. I am in a position to bind the Government by what I say and by what Amendments I might choose to accept. It is important to say that at the outset, because I should not like it to be thought that anything said by me at this stage rather than by the Home Secretary was debased or devalued
  1512
  in the eyes of the people to whom it was addressed.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I was trying to be helpful by boosting the hon. Gentleman so that he might eventually get a transfer to the first team.
  Mr. Carlisle: I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that I was not in a position to give any undertaking or to accept any Amendment.
  I accept that we are dealing with a human problem. I should like, first, to clear up what can only be a misunderstanding. I accept the genuineness of the hon. Member for Carlisle about the visit of the representative of the Establishments Department of the Home Office to meet the staff association and the trade unions in Carlisle, but I am advised that there was no intention or understanding that there was to be a regular monthly visit. When the representative of the Establishments Department visited Carlisle, earlier this year and spoke to the staff side and to the trade unions he was asked by one of the representatives of the trade unions or of the staff association whether he would come once a month. I am told that his answer was that he would come up as often as necessary, and that may have led to misunderstanding. It may have been assumed that he meant that there would be a monthly meeting.
  The representative said that he would go up as often as necessary, but it has not been felt, while the Bill has been going through the House, that anything further has occurred since then to justify another visit. I am told that a visit has been planned for next month, when this gentleman will return to Carlisle to discuss matters with those concerned. If there has been a misunderstanding, and if it is in any way the fault of the Home Office, I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Although we do not think it right to tie ourselves down to meetings at fixed intervals, we have agreed that there should be meetings with the staff side as and when necessary.
  8.0 p.m.
  Perhaps I may deal in reverse order with the matters that have been raised. I start by dealing with new Clause 7, which deals specifically with maintenance staff. I am told that there are about 60 tradesmen on the maintenance staff in the works

  1513
  department. They are all civil servants. I do not think that I can give an undertaking in the terms asked for, but I can say that there are other Government Departments in the area which have maintenance staffs, and that the Home Secretary will use his best offices to see that these people have the opportunity, if opportunity it be, to transfer to other Government Departments in the area.
  The staff are civil servants, and if they are not offered alternative employment within the Civil Service—I repeat "within the Civil Service", because they may take alternative employment outside the Civil Service—and become redundant as a result of the Bill, they will be entitled to compensation under Civil Service regulations, but the Home Secretary will use his best offices to see that where possible they are transferred to other Government Departments.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I am following the Minister's argument, and I am grateful to him for giving way. After the Bill becomes an Act and the Government start to hive off these pubs, what will happen to the people employed there, bearing in mind that they are civil servants? Let us suppose that one of the staff—it does not matter whether he is a member of the head office staff, one of the managers, one of the ancillary workers, or a joiner—is offered other employment and decides to accept it because he is unsure about his future. Will he be granted a golden handshake under the redundancy payments scheme?
  Mr. Carlisle: The people employed there will be treated in accordance with the regulations relating to civil servants, but I can go further and say that if someone has an opportunity of taking other employment within the Civil Service before he becomes redundant—because there are regulations about the rights of civil servants to transfer from one job to another—his position will be sympathetically considered. If he becomes redundant from the Civil Service he will be entitled to compensation under the Civil Service regulations, despite the fact that he takes employment which ceases to make him a civil servant; in other words, with a private employer.
  I assume that different considerations will arise if a man, having the opportunity to take an attractive job outside
  1514
  the Civil Service, decides to take it while his present job still exists, because there will then be no question of redundancy. He will move of his own free will. If he makes that decision voluntarily, I do not think he will be entitled to any redundancy payments under the regulations.
  Now I come to new Clause 2. I realise that I must bear in mind the stresses to which reference has been made, and that people want to know where they stand in the new set-up. I appreciate that, but I must, nevertheless, advise the House against accepting the Clause. If it is to mean anything, it must be enforceable, and the fact is that it is not. It is limited by the words which the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) emphasised,
  "so far as is practicable".
  It is, in many ways, merely legislating for an intention, rather than any effect.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that there was nothing in the Bill about pensions or compensation. That is true, but there does not have to be. Those who are employed in the State scheme are civil servants, and as such they are covered by other Acts which deal with their pension and compensation rights. It is not necessary in this Measure to detail their rights. They are civil servants, and they qualify for pensions and compensation under other Acts.
  The real answer to new Clause 2 is what the right hon. Gentleman suspected, that whereas this provision has been lifted—and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense—from Section 106 of the 1964 Act, the position here is reversed. Section 106 of that Act says that where, under Section 104, the State chooses to acquire licensed premises, either compulsorily or voluntarily, it binds itself to continue generally the employment of those who are working there at that time. As a buyer, one can choose to bind oneself. What is unenforceable is a seller attempting to bind the buyer.
  The Home Office hopes that on the transfer of ownership of the premises many of the existing staff will continue in their employment, but one cannot bind oneself by Statute to that. As my hon. Friend said, if one binds oneself to that, one can do so only in such a way as seriously to depress the price of any

  1515
  premises. A person who was hoping to buy, would, on facing such a condition, say that the price he was prepared to offer was depressed.
  I hope that most of those employed will continue to be employed, but I cannot bind the Home Secretary, because any such undertaking would be unenforceable.
  Mr. Cant: I was not being excessively critical but simply stating a fact. No doubt anyone in this situation would have done the same. But is there not a serious philosophical implication in what the Under-Secretary said—that the State as a buyer is willing to impose higher costs on itself by making these arrangements than it is prepared to impose as a seller?
  Mr. Carlisle: To the degree that it buying by compulsory purchase, there is nothing morally unreasonable in that proposition. It is a question of enforceability more than anything else. As a buyer, one can bind oneself, but one cannot as a seller in a free market transaction bind the buyer.
  The answer to the question of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is that one would have to know more about the present position of tenants or managers. If such a man were a tenant of one of the 40 smaller public houses, he would be given the first opportunity to purchase.
  Mr. William Hamilton: They have no money.
  Mr. Carlisle: That is a major consideration, but there are mortgages, and insurance companies will arrange money, particularly for a young couple who are running the place well. If it is a managed house, the man is a civil servant, and if he did not remain the manager on change of ownership, he would be a redundant civil servant and likely to be entitled to compensation.
  I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen). I do not believe that there is such a superfluity of trained and experienced staff in the licensed trade that people buying these public houses will not wish to retain the services of many of those who are running them.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary is being a little too cautious. He could have
  1516
  accepted new Clause 2 without giving much away, particularly in view of his last suggestion, that if the quality of the staff is that good they are all right. If their quality is as good as we say, and in the light of the service which they have given to the State Management Scheme, the Under-Secretary has an obligation to accept an Amendment which would not bind the Secretary of State—there is no suggestion of that in the new Clause—but lay an obligation on him "so far as is practicable." In other words, he would use his good offices to see that they continued in their jobs, and for most of these people it is not just their jobs but their houses as well that are at stake.
  I have examined the proposed arrangements for compensation for premature retirement from the Civil Service industrial staff; they are new arrangements because of this problem. Many people who work in the breweries live in the properties of which a list was forwarded to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Ernest G. Perry). The same is true of the managers of the public houses. They and their wives do a team job, and they merit a certain consideration.
  An incoming brewer, small company or individual, may think it commendable of the Secretary of State to have insured this willingness on the part of the staff to help in the transitional period—if they are so willing. The team of manager and his wife is what counts for anyone taking over a public house. I know enough about the business to know the importance of this. So we are not placing such a terrible obligation on the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Idris Owen: I am in a dilemma. I have a great deal of sympathy with these representations, but I see practical difficulties. Can we take a classical case, of a large brewery company employing thousands of operatives who are tenants or managers of licensed premises? Let us suppose that it took over the Carlisle State Management Scheme under terms not less favourable for the staff than they already enjoy.
  I ascertained in Carlisle that the one distinct advantage which the State operatives enjoy is a fairly long holiday. Can

  1517
  the right hon. Gentleman imagine the dilemma of a large brewery company in assessing this problem if it knew that it would have in Carlisle staff enjoying four weeks' annual leave and throughout the whole length of Great Britain an entitlement to only two weeks? The tail would be wagging the dog and it would create an awful problem for the negotiators on behalf of the brewery company. It may encourage them to take the view that they must offer a less attractive price for the premises because of these onerous conditions. This is a pertinent point.
  Mr. Ross: Assuming that the 170 licensed premises had been bought, it was a very interesting presumption of the hon. Member—
  Mr. William Hamilton: Yes, just one brewer.
  Mr. Idris Owen: Or two or three.
  Mr. Ross:—that this Carlisle tail would wag the dog, bearing in mind that these brewers, according to what we have been told by the Monopolies Commission Report, "Brewery ownership in England and Wales", own 86 per cent. of the public houses.
  The new Clause meets the practical difficulty that the hon. Member fears. The words are "so far as is practicable". If these people are as good as he now says they are, despite the reflections that he passed on the purposes of the new Clause, I am sure that he will agree that when balancing the two things the brewery companies would have no difficulty in deciding.
  I am concerned that somebody should speak for people, many of whom have given 15, 20 or even 30 years of their lives to State management. I am shocked and disappointed that we should have had such a poor response from the Minister with all this business about "binding". We did not make it a condition of sale. That would have been binding; that would have affected the buyers. We did not do that. We tried to place upon the Minister the same obligation to the people as was accepted by the State when it took over.
  We have had a miserable reply from the Minister. I am disappointed that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should sit in his customary silence, even on a point like this, which affects so many people. It is a great pity that the Minister never went to Carlisle to meet these people. If he had, the first thing that he would have appreciated would have been their quality and their loyalty to the service that has employed them. Many of them are third-generation employees.
  The Tory Party will not get much loyalty from its hitherto supporters. I thought that loyalty was something that the Tory Party enjoyed in the industrial world, something that it liked to think was its—something that was appreciated and was duly recompensed, and not merely compensated. The Minister's answer was not good enough. That being so, I ask my hon. Friends to support us in the Lobby.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 128, Noes 157.

  Division No. 390.]

  AYES

  [8.22 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hamling, William

  Ashton, Joe

  Doig, Peter

  Hardy, Peter

  Beaney, Alan

  Dormand, J. D.

  Harper, Joseph

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Driberg, Tom

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Horam, John

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Dunn, James A.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Booth, Albert

  Eadie, Alex

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Bradley, Tom

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Buchan, Norman

  Ellis, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Evans, Fred

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Hunter, Adam

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Ford, Ben

  Janner, Greville

  Concannon, J. D.

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Davies. G, Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Mendelson, John

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Kelley, Richard

  Millan, Bruce

  Stallard, A. W.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Lamond, James

  Ogden, Eric

  Taverne, Dick

  Latham, Arthur

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Lawson, George

  O'Malley, Brian

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Orme, Stanley

  Tinn, James

  Leonard, Dick

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Torney, Tom

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Weitzman, David

  Loughlin, Charles

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Whitlock, William

  McBride, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  McCann, John

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. (Caernarvon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Woof, Robert

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Sandelson, Neville

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

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

  James Hamilton and

  Marsden, F.

  Sillars, James

  Mr. John Golding.

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Silverman, Julius

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gower, Raymond

  More, Jasper

  Astor, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gray, Hamish

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Green, Alan

  Mudd, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grieve, Percy

  Murton, Oscar

  Bell, Ronald

  Grylls, Michael

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Gurden, Harold

  Normanton, Tom

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nott, John

  Biffen, John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Body, Richard

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Bowden, Andrew

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

  Peel, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Buck, Antony

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Bullus. Sir Eric

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

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

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kilfedder, James

  Rost, Peter

  Chapman, Sydney

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Simeons, Charles

  Clegg, Walter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cooke, Robert

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Cormack, Patrick

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Costain, A. P.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Critchley, Julian

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sproat, Iain

  Crouch, David

  Loveridge, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Stanbrook, Ivor

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

  Curran, Charles

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McLaren, Martin

  Tebbit, Norman

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

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Dean, Paul

  McMaster, Stanley

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

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Trafford, Dr. Antnony

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

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

  Mather, Carol

  Waddington, David

  Emery, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Wells John (Maidetone)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Fell, Anthony

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wilkinson, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

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

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fowler, Norman Fry, Peter

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Hector Monro and Mr. Tim Fortescue.

  Molyneaux, James

  Gardner, Edward

  Money, Ernle

New Clause 8

  COMPENSATION
  In computing any compensation available to employees of state management, the relevant date after which entitlement should start should be the date of publication of this Bill.—[Mr. Ross.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ross: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  It is a simple Clause relating to staff and people employed, and relating to compensation. I hope that I will receive a much more sympathetic answer this time. If the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been delegated to do this job, then our hopes rise.
  The Clause states:
  "In computing any compensation available to employees of state management, the relevant date after which entitlement should start should be the date of publication of this Bill ".
  The Bill was originally published in February. The point is that these people, since that time, have been in a position of considerable uncertainty. They were eventually told at a certain meeting what their position was with regard to con-pensation if and when they lost their jobs. The House has certain obligations when dealing with these people because they are civil servants who, by decision of the House, may well lose their jobs.
  I sincerely hope that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) will show the kind of attention to this problem that he has to the others. He is one of the few who have taken a continuing interest in the problems of the people concerned. Since February they have been uncertain as to what will happen to them, what kind of compensation they will receive and whether anyone will make any effort to see that their jobs continue or, if they do not continue there, whether they are to be transferred to another section of the Civil Service and, if they are, what this will mean in respect of removal, the tenancy of the house and so on.
  This is where we are in a dilemma about taking the right amount of time to dispose of the properties and get the price. Certain people want the thing done as quickly as possible, because the longer this goes on the longer the un-
  1522
  certainty remains. When the Under-Secretary said in Committee that the Government expected the whole matter to continue for about another year, that meant about another year of uncertainty.
  The Bill has still to complete its stages in the House tomorrow, and will then go to another place, where they have certain things taking up their attention which will continue to do so for some considerable time. But we can take it that it will probably be some time in July before the Bill receives the Royal Assent. That is a fair length of time for people to be left in an uncertain position, knowing that their compensation might be jeopardised if they took any precipitate step, but also knowing that they may let good opportunities of a job slip past them. That would not happen if the date of entitlement to compensation were fixed as the date of publication of the Bill.
  This is a simple human problem. I hope that abstruse reasons such as not binding the Government are not advanced. The dilemma arises from what the Government have decided to do and how they have decided to dispose of the assets. They have left themselves little room for manoeuvre. Many of these employees will have had 18 months to two years of uncertainty. In that time, because of the conditions qua compensation and because disposal will start only after the Bill becomes law, their career in State management, which they were entitled to expect would continue for a long time, may well have been destroyed and they may well have lost the possibility of alternative employment.
  The hon. Member for Stockport, North said that in the licensed trade a good husband and wife team—manager and manageress—are greatly sought after. Such a team could well desire a move. The move will cost them considerably in removal expenses and new furniture and will cause a complete upset. For the services they have given to the State they are entitled to normal compensation. If they accept a job between the date of publication of the Bill and such time as the premises are disposed of, they will be at a considerable disadvantage. On the other hand, the State can be equally disadvantaged; because who will want to fill a vacancy which may last for only a few months?

  1523
  This is what the Government have let themselves in for because of the dogmatic decision to act in this way after all these years and sell off these properties. The rights and expectations of the individual must be properly recognised.
  It may well be that in my haste in tabling this short Clause I have not selected the right words. If the Government accept the principle, there will be no Division. If they are not satisfied with the wording of the Clause, let them undertake to put it right in another place. If the Government will not accept the principle, I have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to support me by speech and by vote.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: I support the Clause which has been so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). Up to now, we have not been able to extract one concession from the Government which will be of any benefit to employees. The Clause provides the Government with an opportunity to prove that they mean business. [Interruption.] I am sorry that it is necessary for a conference to take place between the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office and the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro), whose area is affected by the proposal in the Bill. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Dumfries would support the Clause, because some of his constituents will be affected. Indeed, there should be a measure of support on both sides of the House for the Clause. We are dealing here with people, and if the people in his constituency who are employed in the State Management Scheme are not important to him, as they are to me, that will not be a good advertisement for him in Dumfries-shire when he has to give an account of his part in the Government's legislation and in doing his constituents and mine out of a little extra compensation.
  If the hon. Gentleman will get up and speak, I will sit down. I realise that he is a Whip, but if he wishes to break the tradition of silence on an issue like this, I have no objections. No doubt his constituents would like to hear from him whether he supports the Government on this matter. Evidently, however, he does not wish to break tradition and, in remain-
  1524
  ing silent, he is condoning the fact that the Under-Secretary of State will, presumably, reject the new Clause. His constituents will suffer from his acquiescence.
  I hope that the new Clause will be accepted because it is vital to people employed in the scheme. I realise that another conference is going on on the Front Bench between the Under-Secretary of State and the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival). If the Under-Secretary of State will listen, I hope that he can give some indication of the number who have already left the employ of the State scheme since the announcement in February. How many vacancies are there? Is there any difficulty in filling the vacancies?
  If the Under-Secretary of State claims to be humane—as I believe he is—he will accept the new Clause and will not, I hope, brush it aside again and say that this is just another piece of Labour Party propaganda. We are dealing with people and I want to be sure that, on the demise of the scheme, and if they are not fixed up with other employment, the Government will be prepared to stretch the terms of the Redundancy Payments Act.
  Mr. Garrett: I support the new Clause. There is nothing original in the proposal. These sub-committee meetings on the Front Bench opposite are getting monotonous. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), I cannot concentrate on my speech when I am talking to no one.
  This is an important new Clause and the Government can establish a good modus operandi in industrial relations by accepting it, especially as they have been castigating the trade unions and some employers for bad industrial relations. Here is their opportunity to set a precedent for good industrial relations. What we seek is already established practice in many industries. For example, large companies like I.C.I. and D.C.L. in the private sector and British Railways and the National Coal Board in the State sector have established their own redundancy schemes, through a system of collective bargaining, which are quite irrespective of the State redundancy scheme. In such schemes, invariably the commencement of redundancy payments or compensation payments for loss of

  1525
  jobs starts on the very day of announcement of the closure of a factory or plant or certain operations. This has become an established part of collective bargaining. The Government would be just about bringing themselves level in what is already part of the normal system of industrial relations.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. Golding: Even in normal times the uncertainty created among these workers by the Government would have justified the acceptance of this new Clause. These are not normal times. We have an unemployment figure of 800,000 and economists, journalists and political commentators estimate that there will be over a million unemployed in the winter. If the Government accept this new Clause they would be saying to the State workers, "You need not hang on to face a worsening labour market, you can leave while there is still some slight glimmer of hope of alternative employment." If the Government deny this to these workers they will be saying, "Wait until the unemployment situation is far worse so that you can leave with your 'loss of office' emoluments."
  That is an important issue for the workers. For years these workers, as industrial civil servants, have accepted pay lower than they could have obtained elsewhere because of the security offered in their employment. The Government are taking that security away. The least that they can do is to let these people go with compensation at a time when they can find alternative work and not in the winter when there will be no possibility of them starting anew in another job.
  Mr. David Waddington: I was not fortunate enough to sit on the Committee, but I have taken an interest in the Report stage. I have been moved to speak by the remarks of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and I hope that some other hon. Member opposite will amplify the point that he has made. If I heard him correctly, he was saying that employees of the State in Carlisle have, over the years, been paid at lower rates than people in comparable employment in other parts of the country.
  Mr. Golding rose—
  Mr. Waddington: I will give way in a moment. So that the hon. Member may
  1526
  follow the whole of my point—if I have misunderstood what he has said, I will gladly take a correction—I thought further that he was saying that they had taken lower basic wages because they had security of employment which was not afforded people employed in other areas.
  Mr. Golding: I did not use the word "comparable" in any sense. I was making the point that I have often made as a trade union official in the Post Office, about people in the public sector, particularly those classified as industrial rather than non-industrial civil servants. It has been borne out by a Prices and Incomes Board report that these people have chosen to go into an employment which affords them a high degree of security rather than into different employment in the private sector.
  Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clearing up that point. It seems to me that the point he was making loses some of its force. If these employees in Carlisle were earning similar wages to those being earned by other people in other parts of the country, it hardly seems a strong point against denationalisation to say that one of the consequences of denationalisation would be that these people who had expected to remain in that employment all their lives are now prevented from doing so.
  I cannot understand why Opposition Members are all that gloomy. From my limited knowledge of the liquor trade and having heard something this afternoon of the way in which it has apparently been expanding in recent months and years, I should have thought that anybody who had been employed in one of these State pubs in Carlisle and who had made a good job of it, as, according to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), all of them have, would have had no difficulty in finding a situation elsewhere, that he would find scope for his talents in other towns throughout the land, or in the new pubs which, apparently, are to be built in Carlisle.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is talking about scope, but if all the pubs are bought by one brewer and he decides to close a number and to concentrate, many people will be thrown out of work. We are anxious that any such people

  1527
  should get a little extra if that is at all possible. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position in Carlisle is gloomy.
  Mr. Waddington: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that comment, because it has taken me on to my next point. There have been many contradictions in the arguments of Labour Members. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said that he feared that one of the consequences of denationalisation would be that many more licences would be granted in Carlisle. If that happens, there will be more scope for employment for the very people for whose future the hon. Member for Carlisle is concerned. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, on the one hand, that one of the consequences of denationalisation will be a free-for-all by the brewers, who will nobble the licensing justices, with the result that many more licences will be granted, and, on the other hand, that all those now employed in State pubs will find themselves suddenly unemployed. There is a plain contradiction there, and I am surprised that hon. Members opposite did not see it.
  Mr. James Sillars: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) does not understand that there would be a change in the character of the job of someone now employed in a State pub in Carlisle who found himself employed in a private enterprise pub. Anyone who knows the liquor trade—and, like the hon. Gentleman, I do not often drink in pubs, but I know a little about it, as do most people—knows that the conditions of service in the private enterprise trade and in the Carlisle pubs are vastly different. Those in the former are not covered by the same pension schemes or security of employment as those of the latter. Anyone with any knowledge of the private licensing trade knows of the vast turnover in staff year after year, and should lead anyone who knows anything about management to question certain aspects of the private sector.
  One or two important documents are floating around. One is the Code of Industrial Relations Practice. I shall not get involved in that. I simply point out that it is not enough for the Government to preach the basic principles on this
  1528
  piece of paper with the purpose of regulating the conduct of industrial relations and improving human relations. New Clause No. 8 is an acid test of the Government's sincerity in their alleged desire to treat workers properly. I ask him to bear in mind the edict of the Secretary of State for Employment to all employers—and the hon. Gentleman will answer as an employer—that the first regard should be to human relations and the human needs of the people they employ.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I appreciate that the wish of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and of hon. Members who have spoken to the new Clause is to help those who may become redundant as a result of the Bill. I share with them the natural anxiety of the people involved in and affected by the Bill; I am not out of sympathy with them.
  I should like to answer the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) about the number of staff who have left the State Management Scheme in recent months and the difficulties which have been experienced in filling the posts. I have not the exact figures. As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, there is always in the State management system, as in the liquor trade and hotel trade generally, a fairly high turnover of staff and difficulties in obtaining staff. But, as far as we are aware, the fact of this Bill has not led to an increase in the turnover of staff or to any difficulty in filling vacancies. I apologise for not being able to be more precise.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock wished to be assured that in the interim period between the introduction of the Bill and the sale of the premises in which the people are working, those employed would be able to take up alternative employment without losing their entitlement to redundancy payments and without it affecting their terms of compensation. Despite what the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) said—and I am sorry that he is not present, although he contributed to the debate only a few minutes ago—about the conditions which he said were developing in other industries, we should be introducing a new principle into the terms of compensation

  1529
  in the Civil Service if we accepted the new Clause.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock would argue that the redundancy being caused by a decision of the Government and of the House creates special circumstances, but I do not think that the circumstances are all that different from the situation in the Civil Service when posts are wound up or jobs are cut as a result of other decisions. I see no difference of principle. The fact that this measure affects a fairly large number of civil servants at one time is not in itself cause for a breach of a well-established principle in the Civil Service.
  9.0 p.m.
  I would remind hon. Gentlemen that other cases like this do arise, and they have arisen, for instance, where defence establishments have been closed down. In some of those defence establishments industrial civil servants have been involved. As in this case, they are given the opportunity to transfer within the Civil Service when it is possible to give them transfers; where it is not, then they are paid compensation accordingly.
  Therefore, while the right hon. Gentleman may argue that we are making a number of people redundant all at once, I do not feel that this case justifies a breach of a principle established and accepted within the Civil Service. For that reason, while I acknowledge the anxiety, and accept the good motives from which this new Clause is proposed, I am afraid that I cannot advise the House to accept it.
  There are two other particular points which I would like to make. One was made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). He was entirely right in what he said when he pointed to some of the inconsistencies in some of the arguments which we have heard from right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. From the way in which they have spoken this afternoon and during the weeks in Committee one might think that we were destroying jobs altogether and that there would be no alternative employment in the liquor trade or in the retail trade in the State management districts. Yet, in the same breath, they have catigated us by saying that private enterprise is rushing in to take over the assets. If private enterprise comes in to take over the
  1530
  assets, that will be creating employment. Therefore, I certainly hope that there will be plenty of alternative employment—or, best of all, continuing employment—for those who have worked in the State management districts. Nevertheless, I feel sympathy with those who feel that they should seek other opportunities as they arise elsewhere.
  Finally, I should like to make a point of a more technical nature. I have dealt with the principle of the new Clause, and I should like now to deal with one technical point arising out of it. It is the matter of the assessment of compensation and how it may be related to length of service. The new Clause proposes that it should be assessed from the date of publication of the Bill. That is what the right hon. Gentleman seeks. If someone has remained in the service of a State management district right up to the time when the asset with which he has been working is disposed of, that could be a considerable period after the publication of the Bill, because, despite what was said earlier, and despite what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have alleged, we are going to dispose of the assets in the way we think best, and we express the hope that it may be possible to dispose of them within a year. However, some of these properties, as my hon. and learned Friend argued earlier, could, for one reason or another, take longer than a year to sell. Equally, some people may be working in a State management district right up till the last minute. Purely in terms of service, it might not necessarily, in the extreme case, be a benefit to a person who remains in the service of a district up to the last minute that he should have his compensation assessed from the date of the publication of the Bill.
  I do not put that argument forward as a matter of principle. That does not condemn the new Clause. I hope, however, that I have made it clear that both on the principle and in practical terms this new Clause presents difficulties. This being so, I must ask the House not to accept it.
  Mr. Ross: I think that one of the worst of all reasons for asking anyone to reject an Amendment or a new Clause is a reason based on technicalities.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I did not.
  Mr. Ross: No. The hon. Gentleman just added it and spoke for five minutes on it at the end of his speech, and that is the importance which he places upon it.
  The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that every person involved here knows the details of the compensation scheme—I have a copy of it here—and that those people know whether or not by leaving their jobs a week before a certain date they would forfeit a year's compensation under the scheme—but surely, it is a matter for them to decide. The hon. Gentleman is objecting to the principle. He seems to think that this is comparable to the closing down of a defence establishment. A defence establishment is closed down on a particular date and everyone leaves at that time. The closure is usually announced in advance and people know all about it. The position of the people in Carlisle is entirely different. The consequences to the people in the brewery will be entirely different from the consequences to the managers of hotels and public houses. If someone takes over a brewery and closes it down, where will the expert brewery workers be employed? The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the trade Press, or even today's papers, otherwise he would understand how the large breweries work.
  Individuals who are employed in licensed premises do not know whether they will be the first or the last to go or, indeed, whether they will go to a place which is not very enticing to a brewery purchaser and so they will linger on. Opportunities for managers of licensed premises are not thick and fast upon the ground. The best licensed premises attract the best people, and the opportunities are rare. To meet the conditions almost of slavery attached to the compensation provisions, these people must hang on until the last minute—or else! If they leave before then, everything goes. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he shared our anxieties—
  Mr Ron Lewis: Hypocrisy.
  Mr. Ross: I would not say that. I think it is just that there is a sacred rule which must not be broken. But this is an exception. This is unique. The people in Carlisle, over a thousand of them, were given no warning and we are under an obligation to them. I regret that it is left to the Under-Secretary of State to be so cruel—although perhaps not intentionally—and I hope that my hon. Friends will take the new Clause to a Division.
  Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes 162.

  Division No. 391.]

  AYES

  [9.8 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Ellis, Tom

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Evans, Fred

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Ashton, Joe

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Kelley, Richard

  Beaney, Alan

  Ford, Ben

  Lamond, James

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Latham, Arthur

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lawson, George

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Ginsburg, David

  Leonard, Dick

  Booth, Albert

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hamling, William

  McBride, Neil

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Hardy, Peter

  McCann, John

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Concannon, J. D.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hooson, Emlyn

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Horam, John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Marsden, F.

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Meacher, Michael

  Dormand, J. D.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Mendelson, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Millan, Bruce

  Driberg, Tom

  Hunter, Adam

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Ogden, Eric

  Dunn, James A.

  Janner, Greville

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Eadie, Alex

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

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

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Sillars, James

  Weitzman, David

  Pendry, Tom

  Silverman, Julius

  Wellbeloved, James

  Pentland, Norman

  Skinner, Dennis

  Whitlock, William

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Taverne, Dick

  Woof, Robert

  Rees, Melyn (Leeds, S.)

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

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Robrtson, John (Paisley)

  Tinn, James

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Torney, Tom

  Mr. John Golding.

  Sandelson, Neville

  Varley, Eric G.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  More, Jasper

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Gower, Raymond

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Astor, John

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gray, Hamish

  Mudd, David

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Green, Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grieve, Percy

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Bell, Ronald

  Grylls, Michael

  Neave, Airey

  Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)

  Gurden, Harold

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Benyon, W.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Normanton, Tom

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nott, John

  Biffen, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Body, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Peel, John

  Bray, Ronald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Bryan, Paul

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Raison, Timothy

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Redmond, Robert

  Buck, Antony

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kilfedder, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Simeons, Charles

  Cooke, Robert

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knox, David

  Speed, Keith

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Spence, John

  Critchley, Julian

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Sproat, Iain

  Crouch, David

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Curran, Charles

  Loveridge, John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Tebbit, Norman

  Dean, Paul

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  McMaster, Stanley

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

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Tugendhat, Christopher

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

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Emery, Peter

  Mather, Carol

  Waddington, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mawby, Ray

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fell, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

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

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fowler, Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

  Fox, Marcus

  Molyneaux, James

  Mr. Hector Monro.

  Fry, Peter

  Money, Ernle

  Gardner, Edward

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

Clause 2

  DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY IN ENGLAND HELD BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF STATE MANAGEMENT
  Mr. William Hamilton: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 2, leave
  1534
  out from '1964' to 'and' in line 4 and insert 'in accordance with the terms set out in Schedule 1'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this Amendment, it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 12,

  1535
  in page 3, line 5, leave out from '1959' to 'and' in line 7 and insert 'in accordance with the terms set out in Schedule 1', and the new Schedule:

New Schedule

  PROCEDURE FOR DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY
  1. The sale of unlicensed premises shall be dealt with by an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Valuation Department of the Treasury.
  2. Such agents shall be fully qualified chartered surveyors, and will act on the instructions of the Secretary of State.
  3. The valuation of unlicensed premises shall be done by the valuation office of the Inland Revenue, with advice from the district valuer and the appropriate local authority or authorities.
  4. The sale of the licensed premises shall be carried out by the appointed independent estate agents.
  5. The valuation of such premises shall be made by the regional licensed property valuers of the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue.
  6. Such valuations will be checked, confirmed or modified by the district valuer.
  7. Any house, office or shop shall be offered for sale by private treaty to the sitting tenant, or failing such sale, put up for public auction.
  8. The public houses shall be similarly offered for sale to the sitting tenant or manager, or failing such sale, by public auction.
  9. The hotels shall be sold individually by public auction after independent valuation and Treasury approval of price.
  10. In all cases of public auction, a reserve price shall be fixed, and no premises shall be sold below that price, without Treasury authority.
  11. In setting a reserve price full account shall be taken, apart from the value of the business as a going concern, of the site and development value of the property.
  Mr. Hamilton: The Minister will be familiar with the purpose of these Amendments. He will be aware that the Bill still contains no proposals providing the machinery for the valuation and disposal of the property. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary dismissed Clauses 2 and 3 in six lines. He said:
  "Clauses 2 and 3 are the operative Clauses. There is provision to enable the Secretary of State in disposing of premises to 'deem' a licence to be in existence, since technically at present the premises do not have to be licensed."
  That is all that the right hon. Gentleman said about the machinery for disposing of the properties. The Bill provided, and still provides, that the Secretary of State
  1536
  himself shall be responsible for disposing of them.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-West (Mr. Callaghan) made some comments to which hon. Gentlemen opposite took great exception, when he said:
  "Secondly, we take the strongest objection to the proposed method of disposal. We submit that the proposed method of disposal, which is to be left to the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Home Secretary, must be changed in view of the financial payments which the intended beneficiaries of the Bill made to the Conservative Party's election funds. We shall expect changes in the Bill to safeguard the public interest in selling these assets. If they are not made, the Conservative Party, if not the Government, will lay themselves open to charges of corruption. I will return to that and demonstrate what I am saying in due course. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite need have no fear of that."
  That speech led to considerable abuse being heaped on my right hon. Friend's shoulders, and later on mine. I can take it as well as anybody, and give it, too.
  It is significant that it was not until hear the end of the winding up speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland that, in response to an interjection by my right hon. Friend, the right hon. Gentleman gave an undertaking. He said:
  "I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is our intention to obtain an independent valuation to assist us in this operation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1971; Vol 815, c. 969, 972, 1073.]
  If that intervention had not been made by my right hon. Friend that commitment might never have been entered into. [Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman questions that. The Secretary of State did not mention that in his speech. That was during the last two or three minutes of it.
  In the Committee stage, which took a fair amount of time, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not make it clear, either by inference or by specific pledge, that these provisions which were spelt out in Committee would not be incorporated in the Bill. The Under-Secretary of State said:
  "I say at once to the right hon. Gentleman"—
  he was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—
  "that the Home Office and the Government accept entirely the need to leave the selling"—

  1537
  the selling of the pubs, hotels, and so on—
  "to people who know something about it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 387.]
  Presumably the Secretaries of State knew nothing about it, but that was the provision in the original Bill. The implication was that the Ministers knew nothing about it, or at least they were suspect.
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is being stupid.
  Mr. Hamilton: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to intervene?
  Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman ought to treat the House with more respect. Is he seriously saying that because there is a provision in the Bill that such-and-such should happen at the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it is later said that the Secretary of State will have some assistance in exercising his discretion, it is implied that the Secretary of State knows nothing about his business?
  Mr. Hamilton: I am saying that because the Ministers were the leaders of a party which received thousands of pounds from the brewers, they were suspect when they were selling State property to their paymasters, and that because that charge stuck the undertaking was given by the Minister in Committee in the words that I am quoting. He said:
  "…the Home Office and the Government accept"—
  he did not say "now accept"—
  "entirely the need to leave the selling to people who know something about it …".
  The inference to be drawn from that is that the Ministers either did not know, or would be suspect if they sought to sell to their financial backers.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose—
  Mr. Hamilton: No. The hon. Gentleman pops in and out of the Chamber like a grasshopper and expects to intervene to let his constituents know that he is here. The Minister said:
  "…the Home Office and the Government accept entirely the need to leave the selling to people who know something about it, and we accept entirely the need to have an independent valuation of the assets for the purpose of sale."
  1538
  He then went on to talk about how the Government were going to have independent valuers, independent estate agents, use the Inland Revenue Valuation Office, or the Treasury, or whoever it might be, and he added
  "that it might take up to a year"—
  note the words, "up to a year"—
  "to complete the disposal."
  and he spelled out the machinery in a speech that lasted for half an hour. Later be said:
  "…I have had to explain to the Committee the Government's intentions …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 387–9.]
  We all know what has happened to the Government's intentions in the last 12 months, but I shall return to that in a moment.
  The new Schedule, Amendment No. 29, seeks to incorporate in the Bill the undertakings given by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office in the speech to which I have referred. I shall not spell out the details, but there was to be an independent valuation via the valuation officer of the Inland Revenue, the Government were to use district valuers, independent agents outside any Government Department, and so on. The hon. Gentleman the Minister went out of his way to say that, in order to be above suspicion. He told the Committee how the Government would deal with unlicensed premises. Independent estate agents would be used, licensed premises would be sold by joint agents, and there was to be a firm based in London—I do not know why it should be in London; these premises are in Carlisle, in Gretna, in Cromarty—and one in the North of England. Why not one in Scotland? The Minister is muttering. I think that he is a bit under the weather at the moment.
  Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman asks, why not in Scotland? I dealt with how we were going to sell assets in Carlisle. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office later dealt with how we were going to deal with the sale of assets in Scotland. There would be no purpose in appointing Scottish agents to sell English assets in Carlisle.
  Mr. Hamilton: One of the significant features of the Committee stage was the

  1539
  apparent loss of voice by the Junior Minister at the Scottish Office. In the latter part of that speech the Minister said that his hon. Friend would be glad to answer questions about the Scottish position. He went on to say how the premises would be sold, that sitting tenants would be given the first option and that failing that they would go to public auction. He wound up by saying that he had nothing to say on the Scottish position except that it would all be above board. Those are not his exact words, but he was anxious to convey that impression. In col. 389, as I have said, he said that these are at the moment still the Government's intentions. But they are not statutory obligations. When the Statute is being interpreted the court will refer to the law and not to intentions.
  9.30 p.m.
  We have had experience in the last few weeks of the Prime Minister's intention to reduce prices at a stroke and of one of his Ministers going out of his way to say that the Prime Minister was joking and that the housewife should have known it. I wonder whether the brewers paid for his yacht, whether it should be called "Morning Hangover" instead of "Morning Cloud". It is rather sinister that, although the Government declare their honourable intentions over disposing of these assets, they will not put them into statutory form.
  Mr. Waddington: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hamilton: No.
  I want to refer to one or two what I consider relatively minor differences between the new Schedule and the Government's intentions. Paragraph 1 refers to the sale of unlicensed premises via an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor and the Treasury's Valuation Department. When the hon. Member made his declaration of intent, he did not refer to the Lord Chancellor and he may wonder why we do.
  The answer is fairly simple. The Lord Chancellor is an honourable man, which is a rare character in the Tory Party. He went up to Carlisle and talked about establishing some kind of trust—
  Mr. Stanley Orme: Trust Houses.
  Mr. Hamilton: Therefore, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has an independent view of these matters. He wanted a local interest. He said nothing about handing them over to the breweries, but he was in the upper echelons of the Tory Party and he knew how the funds were pouring into the Tory Party from the brewers. Now, he is a high official of the judiciary, and he should be brought in here.
  Paragraph 2 refers to fully qualified chartered surveyors acting on the instructions of the Secretary of State, which again is different from what the hon. Member said. The reason for that is that, if a Minister is involved, he will be answerable to the House and we want the Government to be accountable to the House in these matters.
  I will skip over paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the new Schedule, because they are substantially the same as the hon. Member proposed in Committee. We attach a good deal of importance to paragraph 9. In it we provide that the Treasury must approve a price. Paragraph 10 is linked with that; there we refer to the imposition of a reserve price. There was no indication in the Second Reading debate or in Committee that the Government had any intention of putting a reserve price on any or all of these properties. In other words, if the Government are stuck with them—if the Government are getting to the end of their tether and want to get rid of the stuff—they will sell the properties at knock-down prices. The Minister will then say, "It is in the national interest that we should get them off our backs." We think that that is entirely wrong and indefensible.
  In paragraph 11 we ask that account be taken of the value of a business as a going concern, apart from the value of the site and the development value of the property. Earlier this afternoon, and in Committee, my right hon. Friend made the point that the most important asset in Carlisle is not so much the brewery or the hotels—or the public houses—but the sites. Most sites are in the centre of the city. In Committee and in the Second Reading debate the point was made that the tourist trade will have an increasing

  1541
  importance in the development of Carlisle, Cromarty, Gretna and similar areas. These sites will increase in value. They have an enormous potential. I have already referred to the potential of the site of the Central Hotel, in which my hon. Friend and I stayed. We regard it as important that such factors should be taken into account.
  The Government ought to show that they are honourable. It is not sufficient for them to say that they are, because we do not believe them. Unless they say, "We will put it in black and white in the Bill", they will compound our suspicions. The conscience of the Government has been shown clearly in the Second Reading debate and in Committee, in dealing with this squalid little Measure.
  Mr. Spriggs: Earlier this evening my hon. Friend came near to making a charge of corruption against the Government. Would he care to substantiate that and prove his point?
  Mr. Hamilton: It would take me too long to do that. I made the charge in Committee and I repeat it now; this is a corrupt Measure—one of the most corrupt pieces of legislation that has ever appeared in this House. I put that on record in Committee, in a couple of columns, or more. I mentioned every brewer who had made contributions to the Tory Party in 1968, 1969 and 1970. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has put questions to the Government, who have steadily refused to answer them.
  When the Labour Government were in office they gave information to the House That information is available only because of the Companies Act, which the Labour Government passed. We would not even know what contributions the brewers had made to the Tory Party unless that Act had been put upon the Statute Book. At that time, I asked Questions in the House and I received Answers from my right hon. Friend the then President of the Board of Trade, but the present Government, who said, "We will have honest, open government—different from the last", have consistently refused to tell us how much the brewers are still paying to the Tory Party.
  Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) put down a Question, the Answer was that he should refer to a publication from Transport House, which listed these things, simply because the Minister had not the courage to list them in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
  Mr. Hamilton: That is the point I made in the Committee stage, and the Minister knows that very well. If he will now say, "We are not corrupt. We just happen to believe that it is in the interests of the nation that these properties should be given to the brewers, and it is nothing to do with the fact that the brewers gave us hundreds of thousands of pounds to win the last election", we would not believe him but it would be a frank admission of what happened, a statement of the facts. If the Government do not say that, I repeat the charge that this is a squalid, corrupt little Bill which ought not to be occupying the time of the House when we are faced with the problems of inflation, the Common Market and God knows what else.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in playing out time on rather a sticky wicket and trying to make this feeble protest last for the two days that they requested. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would help me too. I should like to understand what, precisely, is the charge made.
  Mr. Hamilton: Corruption.
  Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has said that the breweries were not now interested in buying the houses and that what they were interested in was getting new licences, and that they had secured guarantees that they would get these licences. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could say whether that is the charge he makes or whether he is disagreeing with his right hon. Friend about the breweries not now wanting to buy the houses.
  Mr. Hamilton: If I disagree with my right hon. Friend, it would not be for the first time nor the last time. But my right hon. Friend did not say that the brewers were not interested. He said, as I said in Committee, that some of the brewers have said that they were not

  1543
  interested. They have said that to keep the price down. That is the point. They are interested and we were told in Carlisle that before the election they were all up there casing the joint and finding out exactly how many outlets there were and what the pickings were for the vultures, the Tory Party supporters. The hon. Gentleman talks about being on a sticky wicket. He should read an article in the Guardian only yesterday entitled
  "Beer traditions have gone for a Burton".
  The article mentions the slogans by which the brewers are selling beer, and this is what will happen in Carlisle, despite the independent valuers, the independent estate agents, most of whom are probably Tories anyhow. There is no question about them being independent. On the question of how honourable this exercise this will be, and what we shall be having sold there, the article says
  "Watney's Red is less bitter and sweeter than Red Barrel. It is a darker colour which leads some people to assume wrongly that it is stronger-bodied and more alcoholic; it has a creamier froth which laces the side of the glass as the beer is drunk."
  This is the effect of the legislation that the Government are now spending two days on—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—two days of the valuable time of the House. The country is agog with excitement wondering whether its champagne glasses have been emptied in Luxembourg because we are passing the Carlisle Pub Bill and entering the E.E.C. No wonder the Government are losing by-elections and fear Macclesfield. No wonder the Prime Minister did not make any more life peers of Tory Members.
  Mr. Timothy Raison Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) rose—
  Mr. Hamilton Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for that honour. Hon. Gentlemen can go and buy a pub in Carlisle. That is the only honour they will get. They will get it at a give-away price.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Carlisle Mr. Carlisle rose—
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mr. Carlisle: Of course I am not attempting to prevent any hon. Member from speaking. I merely thought that it would be convenient to the House that I should speak now.
  1544
  I sat through several weeks of Committee deliberations on the Bill and I know that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) often produces shafts that go home but that from time to time he misses with his cracks. The unfairest attack of all that he has made was his criticism just now when he described my speech of 30 minutes, in answer to an Opposition request that I should spell out in full detail how we propose to sell these assets, as "over-long". That criticism came from an hon. Member who spoke for an hour and a half on an Amendment dealing with the specific gravity of beer, which I am sure he will concede had nothing to do with the Bill. In fact, the hon. Gentleman got into some difficulty with the Chair towards the end of that speech. We expect hyperbole from him—for instance, his repeated accusations that this is a corrupt Bill—but that accusation and his other accusation about time are monstrous.
  It is hypocritical to a degree of the hon. Gentleman of all hon. Members to accuse the Government of wasting the time of the House by spending two days on the Bill, because that request came from the Opposition. If the general public is concerned, as it should be, with the major issues facing the country, it should ask itself why the Opposition wish to take up an additional day of the time of the House on issues of this kind.
  The hon. Member said that, with certain differences, the intention of the Amendment is to put into statutory form the undertakings I gave in Committee as to the method we would use in the sale of these assets. The hon. Gentleman's proposals are unacceptable, not only because they differ substantially in various degrees from the measures I outlined, but equally because it is unnecessary to give statutory form to a procedure which is a matter of ordinary efficient administration.
  It is an extraordinary philosophy advanced by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—it may be a philosophy that he learned as a member of the Labour Government—that unless something is written into statutory form it is not in any way binding on the Government and that a statement made in parliamentary proceedings and recorded in HANSARD as

  1545
  to the method by which the sale will be carried out is in no way to be relied upon and is in no way an honest statement. This attitude may spring from the right hon. Gentleman's own experience as a member of the Labour Cabinet.
  It is not necessary to put into statutory form every statement of intention which is made by this Government. I am satisfied that there is no need to give statutory form to our intentions as expressed about the sale of these assets. To do so would not only be a completely new departure in any form of legislation but would be unsuitable.
  I want to show how the proposals of the hon. Member for Fife, West are really politically motivated and not merely a desire to put our proposals into legislative form. First, he proposes that the unlicensed premises
  "…shall be dealt with by an independent firm of estate agents appointed by the Lord Chancellor".
  His explanation is that he has chosen the Lord Chancellor because the Lord Chancellor is an honourable man. That is clearly intended to be a slur on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in suggesting that he is not an honourable man perfectly capable of appointing estate agents for this purpose. There can be no other purpose in the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Lord Chancellor.
  Next, the hon. Gentleman says:
  "Such agents shall be fully qualified chartered surveyors …".
  Presumably he is implying in general that we would appoint chartered surveyors who were not fully qualified. Indeed, he implies that there are chartered surveyors who are not fully qualified.
  Then the hon. Gentleman comes to the question of valuation. He does not at any stage allow for the agents to be appointed to have the competence to make their own valuations. He suggests that the local authorities are more fitted for the task.
  The hon. Gentleman says—and I am taking the major points—that all the premises must first be offered not only to the tenant but alternatively to the manager. We cannot accept that. But we do accept that the hotels will be sold individually by public auction. His suggestion that anything is added by saying
  1546
  that there should be Treasury approval of the price is ridiculous. I have made it clear that we will sell as advised by the agents whom we shall appoint. They will advise us as to the best and most appropriate means of selling. The hotels will be sold by public auction by reputable agents.
  The hon. Gentleman said, "What of the independent estate agents? They will probably vote Tory as well." That is an extraordinary example of his attitude of mind. Apparently, anyone's commercial decisions, judgment and advice must be coloured by the way they vote at any particular election. It may well be that the majority of estate agents, being intelligent and sensible people, vote Conservative.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: Utter rogues.
  Mr. Carlisle: We now have it said from the Opposition benches that estate agents are utter rogues.
  Mr. Lewis: Some of them.
  Mr. Carlisle: To suggest that when they are asked for independent advice estate agents will colour it to suit the political views of those who seek it is ridiculous.
  I will spell out again the method of sale which we envisage. The hon. Member for Fife, West does not seem to have got it very clear. We will sell the unlicensed premises through independent estate agents, offering them at or near the valuation set upon them by independent estate agents, checked by the district valuer, to the sitting tenants in the first place. For licensed premises, we will appoint two sets of agents—a London firm and a northern firm. I have been asked, "Why a London firm?" There is a good reason. The sale of licensed premises is not the type of work which every estate agent is involved in, and it is important to see that we have firms qualified by experience in this type of work. The hotels will then be sold by public auction.
  I said that the 40 smaller public houses would be offered at or near valuation price and that the rest would be sold in accordance with advice. I explained how we would obtain independent agents. The valuation office of the Inland Revenue would write to the President of

  1547
  the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and ask him to recommend suitable agents to achieve that task. That has been done. We have received a reply from the President of the Royal Institute, and, in accordance with his advice, we have written to those agents whom he recommended.
  The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock criticised the comment that the method of sale was fair, just and above suspicion. The hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), who has suddenly taken an interest in the latter stages of this Bill, has jumped up from time to time saying "Answer the charge of corruption". There is no charge of corruption. Let me make it clear that it is only in the eyes of bigoted hon. Members opposite that this method of sale could in any way be said to be a corrupt method.
  Sir Arthur Irvine: In many ways this Amendment deals with the nub of our objection to the Bill. We propose to divide on this Amendment. This represents our last attempt in the history of the Bill to prevent the Secretary of State being given the power to dispose of property on terms which he, subjectively, considers to be expedient in the public interest.
  The process of valuation should be written into the Bill, as should the intention
  to accept a particular form of valuation. The close association of the Conservative Party with the brewers' interests is well known. In these circumstances, and because of that, it is uncouth to put no safeguards into the Bill to deal with the valuation of the property of which the Secretary of State is to dispose.
  That is our charge. The Conservative Party at other times would have shown a much greater sensitivity on this issue than it has shown tonight, and it is in certain respects an unmistakable mark of its decline. We make the serious charge that the Government have not written in the safeguards which are necessary. That is why, with all the earnestness at my command. I hope that my hon. and right hon. Friends will divide on this important issue.
  Mr. Spriggs: The Under-Secretary charged me with coming into these proceedings at a late stage. I remind him that I attended a number of Committee meetings to acquaint myself with the progress of the Bill. I further remind him that I have been in the Chamber almost all day.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw!
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 166.

  Division No. 392.]

  AYES

  [9.59 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Hunter, Adam

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

  Ashton, Joe

  Ellis, Tom

  Janner, Greville

  Atkinson, Norman

  Evans, Fred

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Beaney, Alan

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

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fretcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ford, Ben

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Freeson, Reginald

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Booth, Albert

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Kelley, Richard

  Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

  Ginsburg, David

  Kinnock, Neil

  Bradley, Tom

  Golding, John

  Lamond, James

  Buchan, Norman

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Latham, Arthur

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Gourlay, Hairy

  Lawson, George

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Leonard, Dick

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hamling, William

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hardy, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Oavies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Harper, Joseph

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  McBride, Neil

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  McCann, John

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Horam, John

  Maclennan, Robert

  Dormand, J. D.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Huckfield, Leslie

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Driberg, Tom

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Dunn, James A.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Marsden, F.

  Eadie, Alex

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Meacher, Michael

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Mendelson, John

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Tinn, dames

  Millan, Bruce

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Torney, Tom

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ogden, Eric

  Sandelson, Neville

  Weitzman, David

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  O'MaNey, Brian

  Sillars, James

  Whitlock, William

  Orme, Stanley

  Silverman, Julius

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Woof, Robert

  Pendry, Tom

  Stallard, A. W.

  Pentland, Norman

  Stoddart, David (Swindon)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Taverne, Dick

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Glyn, Dr. Aran

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gower, Raymond

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

  Mudd, David

  Astor, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Murton, Oscar

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Green, Alan

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Grieve, Percy

  Neave, Airey

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Grylls, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Gurden, Harold

  Normanton, Tom

  Benyon, W.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Nott, John

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Biffen, John

  Hannam, John (Exeter)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Body, Richard

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Peel, John

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bray, Ronald

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Brewis, John

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hornby, Richard

  Raison, Timothy

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Redmond, Robert

  Bryan, Paul

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

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Buck, Antony

  James, David

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

  Rost, Peter

  Churchill, W. S.

  Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Clegg, Walter

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Simeons, Charles

  Cooke, Robert

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Cormack, Patrick

  Knox, David

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Costain, A. P.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Speed, Keith

  Critchley, Julian Crouch, David

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Spence, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Sproat, Iain

  Curran, Charles

  Loveridge, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

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

  McLaren, Martin

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Dean, Paul

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Tebbit, Norman

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

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

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Mather, Carol

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

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

  Mawby, Ray

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Emery, Peter

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Eyre, Reginald

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Fell, Anthony

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

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

  Wilkinson, John

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Moate, Roger

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Molyneaux, James

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Fowler, Norman

  Money, Ernle

  Fox, Marcus

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fry, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Gardner, Edward

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  More, Jasper

  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]

LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL
Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order. There is one question which occupied the time of the House for about half an hour at tea-time which some of us think should be mentioned, Mr. Speaker. It concerns the sample of the State pro-
1552
perty delivered to the House for consideration by hon. Members; namely, two barrels of State beer to enable hon. Members taking part in the debate to make a proper assessment of the values of the subject-matter of our discussions. We understand that the barrels have been embargoed by the Chairman of the Catering Committee for some reason and are not on display or available to hon. Members. May we ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make a decision on this matter before we resume the debate tomorrow?
Mr. Speaker: I am seized of the point. I am not sure whether Standing Orders bear upon it or whether the Speaker has any personal power to impound barrels. I will consider the matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

SCHOOLS (TRUANCY)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
10.10 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The genesis of this debate in parliamentary terms lies in the answer to a Written Question of mine on 15th June last when I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she would institute an inquiry into the changing types of truancy being experienced in secondary schools. The answer had that simple clarity beloved of some Departments: "No." As this gave no information, not even clarification that there are other means of looking at this matter, and because practising teachers are concerned about it, I sought this Adjournment debate.
Parliamentary Questions have their own origins, and this is germane to the matter. On 1st June this year a resolution was discussed at the National Association of Head Teachers' conference at Cheltenham. It expressed:
"Great concern at the high rate of truancy which is a significant factor in juvenile delinquency."
Mr. John Walker, the President of the Bradford Head Teachers' Association, said the problem of truancy was widespread in both urban and rural areas throughout the country, and that truancy was sometimes with the connivance of the parents. Mr. Walter Palmer of Hull, who actually proposed the resolution, said that the rate of truancy had soared to the extent that many authorities now regarded an attendance rate of 85 per cent. as the normal or even a satisfactory level.
Indeed, in the Evening News today the education correspondent of that newspaper says:
"Head teachers in London are alarmed by a sharp increase in truancy this year … One South London head teacher said: ' Over the past 18 months attendance figures have dropped from 93 per cent. to 75 per cent. and they are getting worse'. It is difficult for welfare officers—whose job it is to watch truancy—to cope. A London Welfare Office spokesman said: 'There is no doubt truancy is on the increase' …. A London magistrate said community centres were having difficulty with truants who broke in during school hours."
1554
At Eastbourne today, apparently, Alderman Patrick Crotty, who is the Tory leader in my own City of Leeds said:
"We have just had a meeting to discuss this alarming trend. We have decided to have a thorough inquiry to find out the facts. Our head teachers have noticed an increase in the number of teenagers taking Friday afternoon off. There is little we can do about that, and it is bound to increase when the school leaving age is raised to 16 in 1972."
I thought the figures—not the ones given today which I have only just seen, but those given at the head teachers' conference—important, because they came from practising teachers, and I have discussed this on Yorkshire Television with Mr. Walker and Mr. Albert Rowe of Hull and with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). It became quite clear that we needed the facts. What did I find? I received from the chief education officer in my own City of Leeds a letter which said:
"What is disturbing is the growing number of really difficult problem cases as opposed to casual and thoughtless truancies. This is reflected in the increase in cases where parents have to be brought before the Education Committee or even to the courts. Although, in general, such instances are found amongst the older age groups, there is an equally disturbing trend towards the involvement of younger children. … The fact that there is evidence of deterioration … can, I think, be attributed mainly to changes in attitudes, in society and in the family, which are bound to be reflected in the attitudes of children."
The Leeds Evening Post made its own inquiry and said that there was an increase in parental apathy and in the number of working mothers, the child welfare departments were undermanned and there was inadequate punishment by magistrates. In Bradford, where 4,000 out of 56,000 children are absent from school each day, the article went on to say that of these 4,000 absentees only about 500 are actually playing truant, according to the chief education welfare officer. The comment was made by the deputy director of the same authority that there was often a ringleader who could not care less about authority.
In my own City of Leeds the principal probation and after-care officer said:
"Persistent truants are often the victims of a vicious circle. They fall behind their classmates by staying away—so they play truant even more."
Sir Alec Clegg of the West Riding said:
"With the raising of the school-leaving age, we shall have to do much more for the slow-learning child if we are going to keep them at school."

1555
He went on to refer to magistrates who often treat this matter much too lightly.
This last point was echoed by Mr. Walker, at Cheltenham, who said:
"Reasonably salutary action should be taken by the head, with L.E.A. backing to prevent recurrence."
This question and the question of the school-leaving age were taken up by the Education Welfare Officers National Association which wrote to me on 16th June:
"It is a problem which schools cannot tackle alone and their right arm in this field is the education welfare service. Why then has this service never been recognised? Why has there never been any attempt to build up this vital service to schools and, perhaps even more relevant, why is Mrs. Thatcher prepared to stand back and allow this service to disintegrate in the shadow of the new social services departments? I cannot answer these questions, perhaps Mrs. Thatcher can—all I know is that my association is fighting a rearguard action to save our service. We have the backing of the Association of Education Committees, the N.A.H.T., and other teachers' associations, but as yet no backing from the D.E.S."
In answer to a Question about the school-leaving age, the Secretary of State said:
"I shall shortly be consulting the local education authorities and the teachers on the guidance to be given on raising the school-leaving age. Guidance on the curriculum is given by the Schools Council."
She went on to say:
"I think that far more preparations have been made for the raising of the school-leaving age this time than could possibly have been made on the previous occasion, and I believe that the whole operation will go through fairly smoothly."
On the same day in reply to a question about the minority who cause trouble and who will cause trouble when the school-leaving age goes up, the Minister said:
"…but if children are difficult at the age when they would have left school, this is a very good reason for having another go at trying to help them. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10th June, 1971; Vol. 818, c. 1224–7.]
But she was in favour of the school-leaving age going up. There is scepticism. Many teachers are not convinced about this. The Minister is convinced, I am convinced, the teachers' organisations are convinced, but what teachers need to be told is what is being done.
1556
As an aside, the method of school reorganisation is extremely important in the context of the age group with which I am concerned. Above all, why not look at the nature of this modern truancy? Is it growing and, if it is, why? The evidence I have given so far from other people with knowledge of this subject shows that it is. If it is, why? Is there a change of type?
I once did some research on education in the 1870s and 1880s. If one looks at the school log books of that time, when children who had not been used to the discipline of schools were being first drawn into the system, one finds that the major problem in the 1880s when compulsory education was introduced, was truancy, and it is mentioned in practically every school log book. I can remember in a mining village that when one attended school regularly one had a banner in one's class and had half a day or half an hour off on the Friday. School attendance in those days obviously was a problem. I am not saying that there is anything new. I am asking whether there is evidence as to a change of type.
Is there a growth of phobic school absence? Is there a situation involving introverted children from good homes staying at home with the connivance of parents who are genuinely concerned? I am told by a psychiatric social worker friend that such people attend weekly visits at clinics for discussions, and this group might account for a growth in the number of primary children who stay at home. This may not count as truancy in the true sense of the term.
Is there any different treatment for the more outgoing child from the deprived home who ends up in the courts with a care order? Are the social welfare officers brought in to help the older child who stays at home to look after the other children in the family when the mother is ill, or when there is death in the family? I gather that some local authorities bring in the home help system to assist such children.
Section 92 of the 1944 Act provides that
"Every local education authority shall make to the Minister such reports and returns and to give him such information as he may require for the purpose of the exercise of his functions under this Act."
His function under this Act is to promote the education of people in England and

1557
Wales. My own city of Leeds, according to Mr. Crotty, is to conduct an inquiry into this matter. I understand from the Leeds Evening Post that Bradford also is investigating the situation. Furthermore, the North-West Association of Chief Education Welfare Officers is carrying out an inquiry. Why not the Department of Education and Science?
The Secretary of State this week revealed her concern for what will happen when the school-leaving age is raised. We require facts and more detailed knowledge of what is involved in this growing truancy if the newspaper reports are to be believed, and the extract I quoted from the Yorkshire newspaper is vital. It is not the only factor, but is one part of the story. Undoubtedly there is concern about the type of schooling that is to be provided in this extra school year.
Why was the Minister's answer to my Parliamentary Question a blunt "No"? It was a blunt answer from the blunt end of the educational system. But those at the sharp end, the teachers, the welfare officers and those who have to deal with the matter from day to day will not be satisfied. The purpose of my request for this debate is to ask the Minister what his Department is doing about this matter. Everybody else seems to be concerned about it, and a straight "No" from the Department is not good enough.
10.23 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. William van Straubenzee): It is a valuable exercise that we should be allowed these few moments in which to talk about a subject that is of enormous importance. I shall do my best to answer as completely as I can the questions which have been so persuasively raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). We are certainly not divided about the importance of this matter, though we might conceivably find that there is a difference in emphasis as to the way in which we should tackle it.
The hon. Gentleman said that we need the facts. It is true that there is a certain weakness—though I believe the strengths are infinitely greater—about our partnership system in that we do not centralise statistical information about the entirety of our educational system. I believe that
1558
the strengths of this are much greater than the weaknesses.
It is true that we at the centre do not send out requests for statistics on every aspect of our education service. I can see in the House a former headmaster who I am sure will confirm that headmasters and headmistresses in our education service feel that they have, if anything, to deal with too many returns rather than too few, and we are asked constantly not to request information of this kind, since its provision would take up a very great deal of time. That is one but only one reason why we do not search out information of this kind.
We all recognise that the causes and the backgrounds of truancy can be so many and varied that some kind of central statistical analysis would be a very difficult matter. That is not to say that, at the centre, we are disinterested. I have before me at the moment one of the standard works on the subject by a distinguished author who, to my pleasure, since writing that book has become one of Her Majesty's Inspectors and is available to my right hon. Friend for advice and guidance. No doubt the hon. Gentleman has benefited from this work, as I have.
The overall impression from the literature and inquiries available is to confirm what the hon. Gentleman said. The patterns of school attendance have probably changed very little in the last 10 years. Such evidence as there is suggests that real truancy accounts for only a very small proportion of absences from school, I put it at about 2 per cent.
As the hon. Gentleman said, like Dr. Joad, it depends what one means by "truancy". I define "truancy" as absence from school on the initiative of the child with or without the knowledge of the parent. I feel that the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an important point when he says that numerically as great a problem—it could be even a greater one—is that of the children who are kept away from school on the initiative of their parents. This may be one of the newer features in our education service. However truancy is defined, I do not question that it is possible to point to individual areas and even to individual schools where there is an obvious increase of absenteeism of one sort or another outside the general range.

1559
I want to establish at the outset that I take this matter seriously. The fact that it is taking place at all obviously derives from broken homes, unhappy homes, unstable homes, irresponsible parents—of whom there are some, alas—emotional disturbance in the home, and so on, which have a major effect upon the children concerned.
In the nature of our education service, I believe that this points to local action in the light of the circumstances of the area, of the school and of the family. I hope that the greater co-ordination available to local authority social services which come into force under the Local Authority Social Services Act, 1970, will provide a framework within which we can work more effectively. The body responsible for enforcing school attendance remains the local education authority, including in the extreme case the duty of considering whether to prosecute. If the authority considers under the Children and Young Persons Act. 1969, that there is a need for care and control which will not be available unless the court makes an appropriate order, it can apply for an order.
However the local authority organises its social services—I am not entering tonight into the controversial question of how the authority should organise its social services—it is obvious that we need the closest possible co-operation between the schools, the education welfare services and the other relevant local services.
The hon. Gentleman hinged some of his remarks on to the undoubted problems which arise as a result of the raising of the school leaving age. It must be said, and it is understandable that it should be said, that when the upper school age is raised some schools may find that they have an additional problem in the presence of pupils who do not want to stay at school and who therefore may be tempted to stay away. It is obvious that where the present rate of staying on at school beyond the age of 15 is not particularly high, the potential problems may be greater.
I want to make quite clear how very grateful I am to have the hon. Gentleman's assistance. There is no possibility of the postponement of the basic decision to raise the school leaving age. I state simply that I do not think that there is
1560
any action available to Government which does more to give equality of opportunity to young people than this action.
It is possible to exaggerate the difficulties, but the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that there are problems. I want to state five positive approaches at the centre which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will find helpful in discussing this very important matter. I do not put them in order of priority.
First, the hon. Gentleman will know that for the age group we are discussing—those who will be brought into compulsory school age very shortly—a period of work experience is often of enormous assistance and a period organised by schools in industrial and other undertakings contributes enormously to meaningful secondary education. As the law stands, there is a real difficulty which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has stated publicly that in consultation with her colleagues principally involved she wishes to deal with.
I ask the hon. Gentleman's assistance. One of the principal difficulties is opposition by the T.U.C. I am not making a party point about this. I simply state it and I can understand it. It is possible that the hon. Gentleman could help. I believe it to be mistaken opposition, though I respect it and accept that it is sincere. If the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends with their contacts could assist, this could genuinely be of very material advantage.
Second, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the chosen instrument for central activity on curriculum development is the Schools Council, because under our system the Secretary of State—quite rightly—does not control the curriculum. At its very first meeting in 1964 the Schools Council decided to give high priority to activity in curriculum development in preparation for raising the school leaving age. That is why much of its work has been directed towards revision of the secondary school curriculum, with the needs of the young school leaver particularly in mind. I hope that this in itself shows the urgency of the matter.
Third, we at the Department have our own modest programme—we are initiators in this matter—of short courses for in-service training of teachers. Regional

1561
courses have also been organised. The hon. Gentleman represents part of the great city of Leeds. There is one organised by the Leeds Institute of Education. Local education authorities, through teacher centres, are helping teachers to prepare themselves for the real problems of the raising of the school leaving age. The B.B.C. has plans for substantial radio and television programmes during 1972 designed as a basis for local discussions and to assist local developments.
Fourth, major building projects to provide accommodation for the extra pupils will be provided in 1970–73. I give the fullest possible credit here to the last Government. A building bulletin which they published gave practical suggestions on the range of buildings which may be appropriate.
Fifth, the hon. Gentleman mentioned a circular which my right hon. Friend intends to issue, giving advice and information about the implications of raising the age. We do not assume the rôle of a centralised collector of statistics. I doubt whether a centralised inquiry based on the Department is the right way of going forward, when so much is based on the
1562
areas. I have sought to put forward five positive points.
I should like to recall some words in the Ministry of Education's annual report in 1948 about the raising of the school leaving age in 1947:
"On the whole, the picture is encouraging … the only safe generalisation is that the success or failure of the extra year depended in each school more on the quality of the head and assistant staff than on all the other factors combined. Wherever the teachers showed energy and initiative in providing for the older children, the year was a success, whatever the material obstacles. Where these qualities were lacking, the year was largely wasted and the children themselves were resentful and frustrated."
If I have concentrated on the raising of the school leaving age, it is because it is in this connection that the problems of truancy comes particularly to people's minds. The problems and material obstacles are infinitely less this time owing to the preparations and care of successive Governments.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Musselburgh Bypass
  Musselburgh Bypass
  Hunter Report
  Hunter Report
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Teachers (Posts of Responsibility)
  Teachers (Posts of Responsibility)
  Herring Fishing
  Herring Fishing
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Aliment
  Aliment
  Bull Licensing
  Bull Licensing
  Crofting Counties (Roads)
  Crofting Counties (Roads)
  Derelict Sites (Grants)
  Derelict Sites (Grants)
  Great Western Road, Glasgow
  Great Western Road, Glasgow
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders Limited
  Glasgow (Official Visit)
  Glasgow (Official Visit)
  Clydebank (Official Visit)
  Clydebank (Official Visit)
  West of Scotland (Employment)
  West of Scotland (Employment)
  Divorce
  Divorce
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Beer (Advertisements)
  Beer (Advertisements)
  Fishing Limits
  Fishing Limits
  Community Centres
  Community Centres
ENVIRONMENT
  A440, Defford (Bridge)
  A440, Defford (Bridge)
  Severnside (Scientific Study)
  Severnside (Scientific Study)
  Strontium 90
  Strontium 90
  Atmospheric Pollution, South Wales
  Atmospheric Pollution, South Wales
  Movable Ramps (Purchase)
  Movable Ramps (Purchase)
  Open Land (Clearing of Rubbish)
  Open Land (Clearing of Rubbish)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Inter-urban Road Programme
  Inter-urban Road Programme
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Devices)
  Motor Vehicles (Safety Devices)
  Speedboats (Restrictions)
  Speedboats (Restrictions)
  Export Loads (Weight Limitations)
  Export Loads (Weight Limitations)
  Road Transport Weight Regulations
  Road Transport Weight Regulations
  Lead-free Petrol
  Lead-free Petrol
  Diesel Fumes
  Diesel Fumes
  Road Traffic Regulations (Foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles)
  Road Traffic Regulations (Foreign Heavy Goods Vehicles)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fishing Vessels (E.E.C. Countries)
  Fishing Vessels (E.E.C. Countries)
  Poultry (Movement Restrictions)
  Poultry (Movement Restrictions)
  Cattle Shipment (Loss)
  Cattle Shipment (Loss)
  NORTH-WEST REGION (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  NORTH-WEST REGION (UNEMPLOYMENT)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
EMPLOYMENT
  Civil Servants (Pay)
  Civil Servants (Pay)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Cornwall (Overcrowded Classes)
  Cornwall (Overcrowded Classes)
  Teachers' Pay
  Teachers' Pay
  Professors
  Professors
FOREGIN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensing Laws (Review)
  Licensing Laws (Review)
  Prison Officers (Resignations)
  Prison Officers (Resignations)
  Fire Service
  Fire Service
  Northern Ireland (United Kingdom Representative's Staff)
  Northern Ireland (United Kingdom Representative's Staff)
  Northern Ireland (United Kingdom Representative)
  Northern Ireland (United Kingdom Representative)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Physically Handicapped Persons (Expenditure)
  Physically Handicapped Persons (Expenditure)
  Mental Health Treatment (Children)
  Mental Health Treatment (Children)
  Census Forms (Non-completion)
  Census Forms (Non-completion)
  Bathers (Deaths)
  Bathers (Deaths)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Services)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Services)
  Medicines Act, 1968
  Medicines Act, 1968
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Public Companies (Alleged Malpractices)
  Public Companies (Alleged Malpractices)
  RB211 Engine (U.S. Congress Inquiry)
  RB211 Engine (U.S. Congress Inquiry)
  House Coal Stocks
  House Coal Stocks
  Pulverised Fly Ash
  Pulverised Fly Ash
NATIONAL FINANCE
  City Financial Institutions (Royal Commission)
  City Financial Institutions (Royal Commission)
WALES
  Vale of Glamorgan (Horticultural Employees)
  Vale of Glamorgan (Horticultural Employees)
  Vale of Glamorgan (Farmers)
  Vale of Glamorgan (Farmers)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the o'clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.

AIR SERVICES AND PASSENGERS' REPRESENTATIONS
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 have any plans for recommending to the International Air Transport Association a system by which the considered views of passengers and would-be passengers may be adequately considered by member airlines along with those of the Association.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Government believe that consumer bodies would do best to make their representations to Governments, who have the ultimate responsibility for approving the agreements reached by members of the International Air Transport Association. In due course, if the Bill at present before Parliament becomes law, the Civil Aviation Authority will also have a role to play in these matters. The Government will ensure that the Civil Aviation Authority will not only receive representations but actively seek them.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, in reply to both points, may I ask the Minister whether, when the Civil Aviation Authority is set up, the Government will consider appointing an Ombudsman or a skilled advocate to deal with consumer matters? Would he agree that the skilled advocacy necessary to argue these matters is generally to be found only on one side, and that if they could agree to such an appointment it would give much satisfaction?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is certainly the Government's intention to try to see that air fares are kept as low as possible. I will certainly pass on to my right honourable friend the observations which the noble Baroness has made.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I had not—for a change—intended asking a question on air fares but perhaps I may ask the noble Earl whether I am correct in stating that while, in another place, much attention was given to other matters during discussions on this Bill, there is nothing written into it, as it now appears, which would guarantee enforcement of the sentiments expressed?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, first of all I apologise to the noble Baroness: I had assumed that it was air fares that lay behind her Question. I think in fact that she is not quite right in what she says, because the Civil Aviation Bill provides, in Clause 3(2) for the Secretary of State to give guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, with which the Authority will have a statutory duty to comply. Such guidance, among other things, is intended to make clear that the Authority will consult as widely as possible with all those who are interested.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that there are already a multiplicity of channels for the exchange of views between passengers and would-be passengers and the Committee of IATA, which is the airlines' association's own conference?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords I quite agree with my noble friend. But one of the difficulties is that the International Air Transport Association is an association of air transport operators; and for that reason it is better for consumer representation to be made to Governments, who have the ultimate responsibility for deciding air fares.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what happens to all those forms which air passengers are asked to fill in during their flight—what is their ultimate fate?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, although I have no knowledge of what happens to them en route, I dare say that they end up in the wastepaper basket.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, would the noble Earl be good enough to reply to my question and say whether, when the Civil Aviation Authority is established here, the Government will consider giving one member of it special responsibility for consumer affairs? Is he aware that it is not just a matter of consumer organisations making representations, but that the expertise necessary to present these representations to the Authority is possessed only by a qualified person?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I thought I had answered her question when I said that I would her observations to the attention of my right honourable friend.

HONG KONG TOYS: ACCIDENTS TO CHILDREN
LORD CROOK: 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 their attention has been called to the serious eye injury sustained by a child from yet another toy made in Hong Kong; and, if so, what action has been taken as to the stocks of such toys and future supplies.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I was sorry to learn of this accident. The importer concerned is recalling all unsold stocks of the toy in question in order to remove the metal pin which led to the injury, and the Hong Kong Government Office will press the manufacturer to ensure that all future consignments of this toy to this country are similarly modified.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank die noble Lord for his very satisfactory Answer.

E.E.C.: MONETARY POLICY AND BRITISH ENTRY
3.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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, to assist public study of the implications of possible British entry to E.E.C., they will obtain and publish the High Commission's memorandum of June 10 inviting Germany and the Netherlands to abandon floating exchange rates and urging all members to apply policies leading to economic and monetary union.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, the Commission's paper to which the noble Earl refers related to the economic situation and policies of present Member States. But Her Majesty's Government are aware of it and the paper, and its discussion by the E.E.C. Council of Ministers was reported in the Press. On the substance of the matters raised by the noble Earl, Her Majesty's Government look forward wholeheartedly, if negotiations for British accession succeed, to joining in the economic and monetary development of the Community. The two countries mentioned in the Question have stated that their departure from the normal I.M.F. exchange margins is a temporary one.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that full and fairly informative reply, may I ask whether he would consider it prudent for this document to be published in full, so that we need not be dependent on Press reports? Perhaps, if he is unwilling to give that assurance, he can tell us whether it would commit us to harmonising our Budget policies, to cutting price rises to 3 per cent. a year and to taking measures against the inflationary effects of hot money?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on my noble friend's first supplementary question, this was an internal paper of the present Community and has not yet been published by them, although Her Majesty's Government are aware of it. On the second point, I can only say that the Six took a decision on March 22, 1971, on certain measures of closer economic and monetary co-operation and Her Majesty's Government see no difficulty in participating in these measures for the first stage of the Community's progress towards an economic and monetary union.

869
At any further stage we hope that we shall be a member and have our full say.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend. Could he go this far and ask our present friends in the Common Market, whether, when the paper is available for publication in Europe, he could have a copy and lay it in the Library?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I will certainly take note of my noble friend's suggestion.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we may assume, may we not, that the Government are pledged to work towards the early formation, if possible, of a European monetary union. If that is so, I assume the Government are of the opinion that once the union is formed no question of floating exchanges arises.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are going ahead with these negotiations while accepting the Community's ultimate objectives. I have already said that we see no difficulty in the first stage of progress. We hope that later we shall be full members and able to exercise our advice and decision-making powers.

WATER SUPPLIES
2.44 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: 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 set up a Royal Commission, or other appropriate body, to inquire into the supply of water to the nation as a whole.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales are already advised by two statutory bodies: the Water Resources Board and the Central Advisory Water Committee. The Water Resources Board has published a number of reports on water resources strategy up to the end of the century and further reports are being prepared. The Central Advisory Water Committee published a report on the future organisation of water services in
870
April: the Government are studying this and will announce their conclusions shortly. There is a Scottish Water Advisory Committee which advises the Government on Scottish matters. My right honourable friends think these sources of advice are adequate.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply, although it is not very encouraging? Is it not a ridiculous situation in the second half of this century that after three weeks of dry weather there are parts of the country in which stand-pipes have to be erected and limitations of supply imposed, while there are other parts of the country that have very adequate supplies of water? Is it not time we looked at this as a real, national problem? Does not the noble Lord think that if any commodity calls out for nationalisation it is water, a subject in which there is no political content at all?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think we need have political content in this matter. We know that the demand for water is going to double very shortly and we need proper organisation. We are dealing with this problem. The two bodies I have referred to, the Water Resources Board and the Central Advisory Water Committee, have these plans, and a Statement from my right honourable friend can be expected before the Recess and probably a Statement on final policy before Christmas. If we take any final decisions they will come into effect at the same time as local government reorganisation, which is planned for 1974.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, may I ask the Government what sources the Water Board have for making an adequate geological survey? How can they assess the water resources without the help of the Director of Hydrological Services?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, these matters are very extensive and complicated, as the noble Lord is probably aware. We have at this moment given permission for the go-ahead of a feasibility study of storage in the Wash; that is now authorised and started. It will cost something like £2 million and will take two years to complete. When it is completed we shall have a lot more information.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, what did the noble Lord mean when he said, in reply to a previous question. that there is no politics in this subject? Did he mean by that that the Conservative Party and the Government would rather see the country grow dry than have a nationalised water supply?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lord. The noble Lord knows full well that we want to have plenty of water for everyone.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, we do not want to hark back I come from the area where we have stand-pipes and that that situation would not have arisen had it not been for certain obstructionist societies that prevented the necessary dams from being built on time?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we do not want to harp back on the past; we want to look ahead to the greatest good will from all authorities.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the prospects of desalinisation will be taken into account, parallel with the two reports which are to be taken into consideration by the Government?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, yes. The construction of a pilot scale desalination plant at Ipswich has been authorised. When results are available from this it will be possible to consider what the role of desalination should be. Difficulties are involved, as the noble Lord will be aware, but we are carrying out this experiment at the moment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in deciding the future structure for the water industry there are local government considerations, as well as water industry considerations, and will he bear these in mind when he is reaching his ultimate solution?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, yes. That is why I said that when we finally complete our plans these will take effect at the same time, on April 1. 1974.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is desirable that some beautiful valleys in England and Wales should not be flooded?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. I think my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment is completely aware of this. He has to weigh all the pros and cons of all the various factors. My noble friend may rest assured that he will be dealing with this point.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, following on the last question, may I ask whether the noble Lord will ensure that the Government will now reopen the question of making a reservoir at Swincombe?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that really is another Question.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Geological Survey is to be consulted when this feasibility report is finally published? It is a very important matter.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot give a categorical answer to the noble Lord at this moment. I will write to him, and if he wants further information he can have a Written Answer in Hansard.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Water Resources Board consults closely with Geological Survey? Is my noble friend further aware that the Water Resources Board itself, I believe, employs a geologist?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I had a shrewd suspicion that that was the case, but I did not want to give a categorical answer.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will nevertheless impress upon the Government the need to use that assistance to the full? The noble Lord who has just spoken is well aware that he and I served in dealing with the Water Resources Bill many years ago and that a geologist is available. Nevertheless, much more research is needed into aquefers feeding reservoirs in this country

EAST PAKISTAN: RELIEF SITUATION
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Lothian will, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., be making a Statement on the relief situation in East Pakistan.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
HERTFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

ECONOMIC POLICY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
2.52 p.m.
LORD BESWICK LORD BESWICK rose to move that this House, noting the increase in unemployment and prices, the stagnation of the economy, inadequate industrial investment and the unfairness of material rewards as between one section of the community and another, recognises that the free play of market forces will not solve these problems and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to seek a positive and agreed national policy based on full employment, an expanding economy and maximum social justice. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It is a Motion, I hope, we can all accept. It is largely factual. None can deny the tragic fact of the rise in unemployment. I cannot conceive anyone trying to deny that prices have risen—and faster than before. Noble Lords opposite may wish to explain, or explain away, Mr. Heath's notorious claims on this point, but I shall not waste much time on that. Whether the General Election hand-out spoke about cutting prices or the rise of prices, at a stroke, is immaterial. In either case it was wrong. And in either case we have it on the authority of the Cabinet Minister principally concerned with retail
874
food prices that Mr. Heath did not mean what was said. What he did mean was to capture votes, and noble Lords opposite know full well that they would not now be sitting on that side of the House but for this carefully planned and well-researched propaganda. I state that as a fact and I invite noble Lords opposite to deny it.
The Motion goes on to note the stagnation of the economy. I suppose it may be said that it was stagnant before, but if that is said then the obvious retort is that the previous Administration did at least use restraint to get our balance of payments right. Having been handed a massive surplus, there really is no justification for a stagnant economy to-day. Then I invite your Lordships to note the inadequacy of industrial investment. Again, it is, unhappily, a fact. Industrial investment ought to be increasing; it has begun to fall, and according to both D.T.I. and C.B.I. estimates it will fall further in the coming year. The unfair distribution of material rewards I will deal with in greater detail when I invite the House to look at positive policies for the future.
I shall wait with interest to see whether any Government spokesman seeks to justify continued reliance on market forces. If they do so seek, they will be seen to be part of a small and diminishing minority. Even the Financial Times, the Bank of England and the Confederation of British Industry are now asking for governmental intervention. But I shall not want to rest my case on what those with financial expertise have to say. One lesson we surely have to learn from the last two decades is that financial expertise is not enought. We cannot solve the undoubted problems which I have listed with any smart adjustment of the fiscal system. Social factors, social incentives, social policies, the environment in which human beings work and live are as important, if not more important, if we are to get the maximum efficiency from a modern technological economy.
I am not simply going this afternoon to echo the cry for reflation. Reflation alone is not enough. Pumping new credit or new demands into to-day's economic system would be like pouring a higher octane fuel in an old worn-out engine and expecting an increased power output. To

875
step up demand without a positive, overall socio-economic strategy is simply to invite disaster. Fully to understand the plight to which the crude play of market forces has brought us, we must look more closely at the unemployment figures. The figure of registered unemployed is bad enough, but we must also note that there are to-day 392,000 fewer jobs. There are those who were in the labour force before who are well able to work to-day but who cannot now find useful employment—semi-retired persons and married persons for example. At the same time, overtime is decreasing; short-time working is increasing. It has also to be pointed out that the number out of work for more than six months has doubled. And there is another factor which may have the most profound consequences for our economic future.
I recently had occasion to study a report by the Department of Employment and Productivity (as it was then) of what happened to employees one year after the dismissal caused by the cancellation of an aircraft project. One of my former governmental colleagues has said that, while regretting the dismissal, they had all found jobs. I found that there was more to it than that. Although maybe none of them appeared on the registered list of unemployed, some 20 per cent., although not registered as unemployed, had withdrawn from the United Kingdom labour force—some by migration. Some 66 per cent. reported a drop in wages, and 46 per cent. were not then utilising their skills. I recalled that study in redeployment with recent reports about unemployment or underemployment of graduates. I see in a recent article by the Secretary of the Manchester University Careers and Appointments Services that:
"the number of major employers who in 1971 have declared either no vacancies or very substantial reductions in their provisional needs, is a formidable one and includes more than its fair share of those with a high scientific and technological content in their work."
The author lists Rolls-Royce, Imperial Chemical Industries, Ford, British Overseas Airways Corporation and Albright & Wilson among these firms. This seems to me one of the most disquieting features of the present situation. It is almost trite to say that this comparatively small country, with few raw
876
materials, depends upon technology if our standard of life is to be improved. Here, clearly, we are in danger of slipping back. It is not only employment but the type of employment which will determine our national future.
There is reason for similar doubts about industrial investment. Not only is the overall rate declining but in an economy governed by market forces it will be deployed wrongly from a long-term national viewpoint. The other day I saw Press reports of stockbrokers' recommendations to buy. First on the list was a bookmaking firm, then a wine company, then spirits, then an investment trust which depends heavily upon a gaming house, and one engineering firm. If one is thinking only of profits I suppose it was not a bad list; but if one is thinking of the economic base of our society it is rather depressing. Yet if market forces decide these things, then that is the way investment will tend to flow. The heavy essential industries, the industries dealing in advanced technology, are not quick money spinners: the risk is greater; investment takes much longer to show a return. The extension of present trends will mean that these industries will get a declining share of total manufacturing investment. Yet there will be no great industrial future for Britain unless we have a proper base of these industries to our economy.
The Motion declares that the needed positive policy to set right these failings must include the maximum content of social justice. I want to indicate the kind of injustice, the unfair distribution of material rewards, to which the Motion refers. Under the previous Administration we did something by fiscal means and by the improvement of the so-called social wage to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Yet in one way among the working population we widened the gap between the low paid and the well paid or better paid. The concept of the 3 per cent. or 4 per cent. norm in our incomes policy encouraged the uniform percentage increase across the board in a given industry or service. The £16 or £20 a week man got 3 or 4 per cent. and so did the £2,000 or £3,000 a year man. I recall one particular settlement against which I argued in which a percentage of, I believe, either 8 per cent. or 10 per

877
cent. was applied to scales ranging from £16 a week to £6,000 a year. The justification for this claim was not increased productivity but increases in the cost of living. Yet an increase in transport fares and in the price of bread is met by the low paid equally with the highest paid. Yet the one had, gross, something like £70 or £80 a year extra, and the £6,000 a year man had £600 a year extra. To my mind there is absolutely no justification in cost of living terms for increases like this to be paid to those who are already enjoying a high salary.
The present Government have boasted of a certain success when a wage settlement has been reached at a percentage point less than another, but surely the base must be taken into account. We are fooling ousrelves economically and perpetuating injustice when we emphasise the importance of a percentage settlement. Under the present Administration this percentage increase technique for giving more to him that bath has been compounded by their tax changes. It works the other way round but it aggravates the same trends. The reduction in income tax gives hundreds of pounds back to those who are living comfortably and very little, or none at all, to those whose families are in real need.
The Chancellor's discrimination in favour of the better-oil was justified as an incentive. I recall that my noble friend Lord Diamond analysed this theory of tax incentives to the well paid and showed it to be a false argument. We now have recent experience to study. Can anyone in this Chamber say that they know anyone who has gone to the office or to the works 10 minutes earlier, or worked any harder, as a result of the Chancellor's tax reduction? As a productivity stimulus those tax reliefs have been as big a flop as the corporation tax reductions in stimulating investment. All that the tax changes have done is to aggravate the sense of unfairness. But if we are concerned with incentives let us look at what is happening at the other end of the income scale.
The Government have extended a complicated patchwork of means tests. There are now means tests at various levels, for school meals, prescriptions, dental treatment, rate rebates and certain others, and the whole will soon be complicated by the family income supplement, also
878
of course dependent upon a means test. I know that my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy is especially interested in all this and may go into it in more detail, but I think he will agree that, apart from the taint of charity which is now emerging, there is an important disincentive element.
Various studies have been made. In the Political Quarterly in January a contributor calculated that a man with four children earning £21 a week, by raising earnings by £1 a week would lose £1.30 in income tax, National Insurance contributions, loss of rate rebate and school meal charges. The actual figures vary with later studies, but the principle clearly remains. I invited consideration of this from the viewpoint of incentives, but it is relevant to wage claims. If a worker with a two-child family on a £16 a week wage won a gigantic 80 per cent. increase —ten times the amount that the Chancellor would say was tolerable—he would in fact have a net gain of only £3.82 a week, because of the adjustments in the various payments that are made. We might well reflect upon some, though by no means all, of the recent wage claim against this background.
When we come to consider the pattern of wage claims and settlements we come. I suppose, to the most significant and alarming symptoms of the malaise of the contemporary socio-economic scene. Her Majesty's Government will argue that they are the prime cause of price rises; others will say that they are an effect of such rises. Any trade unionist who believes that what he wins in his pay packet has nothing to do with what his wife pays in the shops is clearly fooling himself. But similarly, any member of Her Majesty's Government who believes that the "standing on your own two feet" philosophy can apply to everyone but the trade unionist again is greatly mistaken. If there is to be a free-for-all ", said Frank Cousins, "then we are part of the all '." The truth is that both sides of the argument fail to take into account just how tightly and inescapably we are each part of that "all". We have developed a highly integrated, highly specialised, highly capitalised industrial society, and we have got to learn the necessary social and political techniques which will make that society work.
In this modern industrialised society, Her Majesty's Government are trying to apply methods of the 1930s to abate wage claims, and they are increasingly baffled because they do not work. Nearly 800.000 on the dole; a shrinking economy; and still the workers can impose a settlement. One reason is that a walk-out of 50 men in one factory can make 1,500 or 5,000 men idle in another. With millions, probably hundreds of millions, of pounds worth of machinery idle, it is cheaper to give way; and in a modern, near-monopolistic economy it is easier to pass on the increases in price rises than it was before. Of course these considerations do not apply to postmen or to probation officers, but the way in which they are treated does not disprove my point. It only adds to the national sense of unfairness.
There is another way of looking at this question. When I was a small boy in the 1921 miners' lock-out, listening to A. J. Cook urging the men to stick it out and hold on to their slogan, "Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day", it was a straightforward struggle against the coal owners. To-day, it is largely a struggle between ourselves. There is no better illustration of this than the story of the public service bus conductor who told a striking public electricity worker to get off his bus and walk because he, the conductor, had had to go to work without a cooked breakfast. It has never in history been more precisely true that we all depend upon each other, and unless we recognise this fact, and the Government act upon it, then this modern economy just will not work.
I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will not bring into the debate the Industrial Relations Bill. All the evidence is that it will sour and not sweeten human relations. I refrain from criticising those parts which are most open to criticism; I content myself with saying that the basic need to-day is for voluntary agreement, not imposed commitments. So I ask, in the words of the Motion, for a positive and agreed £ policy. Such a policy must involve new machinery similar to the Prices and Incomes Board. If I am told that this was tried and it failed, then I say that if we had to give up everything because we fell
880
down at the first attempt, or even the second, none of us would be walking to-day.
When the history of to-day comes to be written and contemporary memoirs are no longer read, I believe that my noble friend Lord George-Brown, with his Declaration of Intent from both sides of industry, will stand out as one who sought and achieved a genuine pioneering milestone in our economic development. Of course, there are lessons to be learned from that experience. One tragedy was that the prices and incomes policy was put forward as an expedient to help solve the balance of payments problem, instead of as a positive socio-economic policy. It was always a negative restraining factor. One incidental tragic result of the last Election was that we never had the opportunity to show how the policy could work when a most comforting surplus had been achieved.
But, my Lords, if we are to have a policy on incomes and prices, it would need to complement as well as make possible a social programme which sought much more obviously to set right inherent social injustices. It would need, too, to take into account the ownership of capital; and I give one indication of where an attempt could be made to meet legitimate criticisms that even where there is restraint on dividends (for which I do not necessarily ask) a restraint on wages only adds to the capital ownership of the shareholders. Company investment, that slice of investment which is generated by the company itself, is to-day too small and should be increased—indeed, must be increased. By fiscal or other means the Government should encourage such an increase. But can we say that if millions are ploughed back then they should necessarily be owned by existing shareholdings? Ought not the workers, from the shop floor to the chief executive, who have helped to create the new resources, be entitled to a share? Or could not a percentage be credited to the people as a whole, through the Government?
My Lords, I have not sought simply to make Party points. I have tried to argue that a modern, industrial, highly integrated economy will work only if we show a readiness, all of us, to recognise that we each depend upon the other and that this recognition. unless it be simply humbug, needs to be reflected in our

881
social, economic and fiscal policies. Reflation is the catchword of the day, but it will give stable and lasting benefits only if it is within the context of the policy I have outlined. We gave the Conservative Administration room to manoeuvre with a nearly £700 million surplus. It is still running at about half that rate. They have an opportunity. I trust they will accept it, and if not, hand it over to others who will. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House, noting the increase in unemployment and prices, the stagnation of the economy, inadequate industrial investment and the unfairness of material rewards as between one section of the community and another, recognises that the free play of market forces will not solve these problems and calls upon Her Majesty's Government now to seek a positive and agreed national policy based on full employment, an expanding economy and maximum social justice.—(Lord Beswick.)
3.18 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has accused the Government of many shortcomings. I suggest that he has drawn attention to many motes in our eyes without regard to a possible beam or two in his. I prefer to take a rather broader view and to begin by quoting some words of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he introduced his Budget on March 30 last. He said:
"It will be agreed throughout the House that for many years, under one Government and another, the economic performance of our country has been poor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/ 3/ 71, col. 1358.]
I am sure that this House will agree with those sentiments. My right honourable friend then went on to outline the broad strategy of economic policy which we intend to follow in order to achieve long-term economic prosperity. We have always recognised that the way ahead is difficult and that we cannot expect to change course without some painful adjustments. But we are now firmly set on our new course, and we do not intend to be blown off it by fretful gusts, not even the lusty gusts of noble Lords opposite.
We believe that our economic policies are in fact precisely those which will lead to full employment, an expanding
882
economy and social justice. It is our concern to ensure that these goals will be achieved not in a temporary and ephemeral fashion but solidly and securely, so that they can be sustained over a period of years. Since we took office just over a year ago we have been contending with cost pressures which have been stronger and more persistent than at any time in the post-war period. During the preceding twelve months the rate of pay settlements had accelerated from around 5 per cent. in the second quarter of 1969 to twice that figure—to over 10 per cent.—a year later. This was a serious and damaging rate of increase which could not be allowed to continue; there was an obvious danger of runaway inflation.
To avert the prospect of further escalation of wages and prices the Government have maintained a firm stand against excessive pay rises; and, despite some prolonged disputes, there is evidence now that the rate of increase in wage settlements has been checked. In the period March to May, the average annual rate of pay settlements being notified was some 2 per cent. below the rate for the period December to February. This is only a start—we have still a long way to go before we secure the substantial fall in the current rate which we require to achieve reasonable price stability—but there are some encouraging signs. Weekly wage rates in March-May were 12½ per cent. higher than a year earlier, somewhat below the corresponding figure of 13½ per cent. for December-February. Average earnings in the first quarter of this year were 12½ per cent. higher than a year earlier, as compared with the corresponding figure of 14 per cent. for the fourth quarter of 1970. It is true, of course, that part of the explanation of the slowing down of earnings lies in the fall of overtime worked: nevertheless, the comparative figures for wage rates and earnings indicate some reduction in wage drift from the high levels prevailing during most of last year.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help us a little further. Has he got similar trends for other years? Can he give any justification to show that this is a trend and not merely a local movement? There are certain seasons in the year when

883
wages go up. Can he give us the comparable figures in previous years with regard to wage drift?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I will try to get those figures for the noble Lord in the course of the debate. All I am trying to point out is that there is an indication that these settlements, which have been running at a very high rate, are stabilising and, if anything, falling slightly. It cannot be denied that these figures reflect, in part, the success of the Government in changing the climate of wage bargaining since last autumn. I would remind your Lordships that our achievements so far are greater than many of our critics thought possible. There were those who cavalierly projected wage increases of 20 per cent. by the middle of this year.
In our view, a statutory freeze on incomes would provide no lasting solution to the problem of cost inflation. Any gains would be short-lived, leading to a renewed upsurge when controls were removed. Indeed, many of our present troubles stem from the period of abandonment of the previous policy: the previous Administration gave way, all too easily, to the pressure of wage demands which built up during the period of statutory restraint. A statutory policy would he difficult to implement and, as time went on, would present more and more opportunities for evasion. Under the previous policy, a number of inflexibilities were imposed on pay structures making it more difficult to take account of changing job requirements and the forces of supply and demand. Workers were more likely to be dissatisfied with their position and this was particularly so with the lower-paid groups. These are real difficulties. I believe that the most realistic policy is the one we are currently pursuing. While we do not believe that a statutory incomes policy would be workable, we have not ruled out the possibility of an agreed voluntary incomes policy: a policy which is acceptable to all sides—to the employers, to the unions and to the Government. We are glad to consider and discuss worthwhile proposals for such a policy. We have had discussions with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. at N.E.D.C. and elsewhere, and will continue to exchange views with them. Basically we are de-
884
termined to explore every avenue to achieve final success. Success in slowing down wages will be of critical importance for a significant slowing down in the rate of price advance.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that he would not mention the phrase used by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and then he went on to do so. Later on in his speech he said that he hoped we would not deal with the Industrial Relations Bill, and then he went on to do so. Therefore, I cannot really refrain from saying that I was rather sorry that he repeated the hoary old chestnut about the words "at a stroke". It has become a kind of shibboleth, without any regard to the context in which the words were used. I am sure your Lordships would not wish to distort the facts, and it really is important to consider the full text of the statement. If I may quote from it, he said:
" That alternative is to break into the price/ wage spiral by acting directly to reduce prices. This can be done by reducing those taxes which bear directly on prices and costs. such as the selective employment tax, and by taking a firm grip on public sector prices and charges such as coal, steel, gas, electricity, transport charges and postal charges. This would, at a stroke, reduce unemployment."
My Lords, this is precisely what we have done. We have reduced S.E.T. We have cut it by half with effect from next month. We have acted directly to control the price of coal, steel, electricity and postal charges, and we have reduced the rise in prices. It would be interesting to speculate on what the rise would have been had we not done this. It would be an interesting intellectual exercise for someone to try to work out what the rise in prices would have been had we not cut taxation by £1,000 million this year.
At present retail prices are running some 9½ to 10 per cent higher than a year earlier, and wholesale prices have risen only some 1 to 2 per cent. less over the same period. The consequences of such price rises at home are grave. But equally their impact on trade and the balance of payments is potentially very damaging.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did not in fact go into this point because I did not want to divert the course of what I hoped would be a constructive debate. Since the noble Lord has gone into it in some detail and I did not give any figures,

885
would he give the rate at which prices were then rising and the rate at which they are now rising?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I have already given the rate at which they are rising now, 9½ per cent. to 10 per cent.; what I am arguing is that they would have risen even higher if we had not reduced taxation. The noble Lord said that he did not want to go into it, but if the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow he will see that he did. I had no intention of going into it. It was at the back of my folder until I heard the noble Lord make his remarks.
Export prices have risen considerably faster than those of our main competitors during the last year. Even at the end of this period, however, there had been little, if any, loss of export price competitiveness over the longer period from the second half of 1968, when the effects of devaluation are thought to have been fully worked through. But if our prices continue to rise at a rate faster than those in other countries, our competitive position will inevitably be eroded. This only serves to underline the need for restraint in incomes. Mr. Harold Wilson put the matter very succinctly on June 8, 1970, when he said:
" One man's pay increase is another man's price increase."
Our balance of payments so far this year has remained in strong surplus. The visible trade deficit in the first quarter was exaggerated by the effects of the postal strike on documentation, and the trend is best seen from the first five months taken together. The average monthly deficit on visible trade was £6 million, compared with one of£3 million in the second half of 1970. When this is set alongside the surplus on invisibles, which is estimated to be running at some £50 million per month, the current account surplus clearly remains substantial. Examination of the composition of this surplus is not, however, wholly reassuring. It is clear that the worsening position in volume terms has been masked only by a substantial improvement in the terms of trade. Whereas in the first five months of the year, as compared with last year, most of the rise of 4 per cent. in the value of exports was due to higher prices, most of the rise of 5 per cent. in import values was due to higher import volumes. Thus within a strong balance-of-payments posi-
886
tion overall there are some disquieting features.
There has been a good deal of comment—much of it exaggerated— about a drastic deterioration in domestic economic prospects since the Budget. I would remind your Lordships that the forecasts published with the Budget proposals envisaged a fall in output in the first half of this year from the level of the second half of last year. This was associated with a decline in stockbuilding from the high rate of the second half of last year. It is true, however, that the figures for the first quarter of this year, published yesterday, show output to have fallen by over 2 per cent. from the second half of last year. The fall is more than expected at the time of the Budget but it is partly accounted for by special factors such as the Ford and postal strikes. In the current quarter some recovery in activity may be expected. Consumer spending should recover from the effects of strikes and benefit from the cut in income tax which took effect in April. Already in April the volume of retail sales had come back to the fourth quarter level. Industrial production, which was unchanged between the fourth quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year, rose in April to almost 1 per cent. above the first quarter level. Again in May there were some signs that the volume of exports may be picking up.
The sharp increase in unemployment this year results partly from the sluggishness of output. But unemployment has risen faster than would have been expected, on the basis of past relationships, from the movement of output. This may be in part delayed reaction to the earlier slow growth in output in 1969 and the first half of 1970 which led to a smaller rise in unemployment than would have been expected. An important further factor has been the tight liquidity position of the company sector, and a major cause of this has undoubtedly been the rapid increase in labour costs. In this way and through its effect on output, cost inflation has adversely affected the employment situation. Here, too, the most recent figures are slightly more hopeful. The rise in the number of wholly unemployed (excluding school-leavers) was smaller in May than in the two preceding months, and this, together with a check to the fall

887
in the number of adult vacancies, may indicate that the decline in demand for labour is now slowing down. We are particularly concerned about the regions of high unemployment. There is perhaps not a great deal of comfort in observing that the rise in these areas since last autumn has not been proportionately greater than in the country as a whole. But we have reformed the system of incentives to industry along with a substantial extension of Special Development Area Status and we expect significant benefits to accrue from these measures.
The interim aim of the Government's Budget measures was to slow down and later halt the rise in unemployment. It will take time for the full effects of the measures to work through. The reduction in S.E.T—nearly£300 million in 1971–72—is effective from July 5, and the increased child allowances—£160 million in 197172—also take effect next month. I would therefore ask your Lordships to bear in mind that a substantial stimulus to demand and employment has still to come into play. The Government have no intention of shirking their commitment to full employment. The present level of unemployment is too high. What is in question is how we can best achieve an enduring reduction in this level. We have argued—and will continue to argue—that a large boost to demand now, with the object of bringing a significant and immediate reduction in unemployment, would be irresponsible. It is naturally tempting, but it is the easy way out. It is yet another of the remedies which buy a temporary gain at a heavy long-run cost. That is not the way this Government are dealing with prices and it is not the way we are dealing with unemployment.
It is only natural that in present circumstances voices should be heard calling for a stimulus to demand. But, as I have tried to point out, the situation is very complex. On the one hand, we are faced with a sluggish economy and a falloff in investment; on the other, there are signs of a revival of consumer demand which is likely to grow as the measures proposed in the Budget take effect. The increase in child allowances, the cut in S.E.T. and, later, the increase in old age pensions will all add to demand. Mean-
888
while, house building continues strongly and building societies are receiving increased applications for credit. Reliable information about the economic position for the first half of this year is still incomplete. Only last week, for example, revised figures were published for the first quarter's index of industrial production, which showed that output was much better than previous figures suggested. In these circumstances my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer believes that it would be quite wrong to take precipitate action and, because there is a great deal of uncertainty, he will be studying with the closest attention the comprehensive review of the economy which customarily takes place at this time of the year. Until this review is complete and he is able to make a full assessment of the prospects for the economy he has no intention of committing himself finally. But if he should judge that further action is called for, he will not hesitate to take it.
Freedom, with responsibility, lies at the heart of the Government's economic philosophy. This thread runs through our policy for inflation, industrial relations, industrial efficiency. It informs our approach to personal and social welfare, where it is our policy to give greater incentives for individual effort and enterprise while accepting the responsibility of providing help for those in greatest need. We believe that the free play of market forces has an important role to perform in our society. Competition is still the best mechanism for promoting the efficient use of resources, for stimulating and rewarding effort and for increasing the standard of living for the benefit of the community as a whole. And it follows that because competition is valuable there should be the greatest possible freedom to compete. We intervene in the competitive process only where there is an overriding reason of national or social policy for doing so. And we strive to make competition effective over as wide an area of the economy as possible.
We recognise the need to temper the effects of competition on those in the community who cannot protect themselves. That is why, in increasing charges for school meals, welfare milk, optical and dental treatment and prescriptions, we have considerably extended the range

889
of exemptions from charges to alleviate hardships and make substantial improvements in areas of greatest need. To assist pensioners, the Government up-rated national insurance retirement pensions by 20 per cent. in the Budget, and the supplementary benefit was increased at the same time. Pensioners with modest incomes also benefit from the changes in exemption and age relief. People on low incomes with children have been given large benefits through the family income supplement and the child tax allowance. Even allowing for increased food prices and rail fares, the net benefit is still very substantial. People without children gain from the cut in the standard rate of income tax, even at very low incomes. These are very considerable achievements over a period of only one year.
In conclusion, my Lords, the Government have taken as their immediate priority the curbing of excessive cost inflation. There lies the root of almost all our problems. Victory in the battle against inflation is the way to fight the increase in unemployment, to bring to an end the long period of stagnation in the economy, to promote investment, to remove injustice and to allow the beneficial effects of the forces of competition to manifest themselves in a more rapid rise in this country's standard of living.
3.41 p.m.
BARONESS SEEAR: My Lords, I must most regretfully begin by apologising to your Lordships that, owing to a mistake, I was not in my place at the beginning of the very important speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick.
I suppose that no one would disagree with the purposes behind the Motion before us to-day. Successive Governments have sought to achieve, simultaneously, full employment, high growth rates, stable money and a satisfactory balance of payments. Successive Governments have sought this aim, and successive Governments have failed. And on the evidence to-day one must, alas! assume that this record is not likely to be broken in the present Administration.
My Lords, the air is full at the present time of pundits telling us that what we need is an incomes policy. It is plain, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said, that if we attempt
890
to reflate the economy we run the risk of making inflation worse unless this can be accompanied by some restraint on incomes. But the pundits who tell us, in many different languages, that what this country requires is an incomes policy do not tell us how to make the thing work, and an incomes policy is only as good as the machinery through which it operates. Now an incomes policy can come in only one of two models: either it must be statutory or it must be voluntary. There may be—to my mind there are —serious political and theoretical objections to a statutory incomes policy. But, apart from these theoretical objections, there is the overwhelming practical objection that you cannot make it stick. It was at the height of the effort of the last Administration that I was very interested to hear a very responsible official of a most respectable trade union remark that he thought the Government's income policy had been extremely good for industrial relations because it had led the employers and the trade unions to get together in order to defeat the Government. My Lords, when the employers and the trade unions get together, neither the Government nor anyone else, it seems, can get much of a look-in.
So a statutory policy is simply not on. Nor do I believe, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the kind of policy that was attempted to be applied through the Prices and Incomes Board—a semi-controlled policy—will in fact operate and for the same reason. The only policy that will work is a policy that results from the getting together, in the first place, of the Government, the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. to decide on what is a rational basis for increases in wages and other incomes. Because these are the people who, in the last resort, have to do the negotiating, and unless the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. are in some sort of agreement as to the kind of base on which they should operate then no policy is going to be successsful.
I should like to suggest that it is high time that this discussion took place. The T.U.C. put forward some months ago proposals which provide at least the basis for the beginnings of such a discussion. Your Lordships will remember that the T.U.C. pointed out that it could be useful to separate the two elements in wage claims: the element that has to do with

891
the unionists' very proper desire to share in the profitability of the industry, and the second and, at the moment, overwhelmingly important element, which represents their fears of being overtaken by price increases. At the moment, the very large wage claims that are being put forward are being put forward in the attempt, on the one hand, to recoup the rise in prices since the last pay increase, but also—and this is more dangerous—in anticipation of future price increases.
Now if we could accept the T.U.C.'s suggestion that we divide claims into these two sections, two advantages would be gained. It would be possible once again to talk realistically about labour's share in the profitability of the concern and at the same time to calm the fears about rising prices by agreeing that if the cost of living has risen to a prescribed point by a given date then automatically people will get an increase in wages. There are, of course, real dangers in escalator clauses of this kind, and in normal circumstances I, for one, would not recommend them. But these are not normal circumstances. We are in a dangerous situation, and dangerous situations call at times for risky remedies. I believe this to be a risky remedy, but I believe also that it provides a workable base on which discussions can take place—and at our peril do we delay these discussions very much longer!
For we are, let us make no mistake about it, in a gloomy situation. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has spelt out how gloomy that situation is. All, however, is not gloom. There are some gleams to be seen. There are some opportunities which, if we have the wit to discern them, may indeed help us both now and in the future. The noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, referred, as if regretfully, to the fall in the amount of over time being worked. For my part, I believe that this is one of the most cheering signs at the present time. It is of course lamentable that capacity in plants is not being used, but ever since the Second World War, my Lords, we have suffered from the disease of overtime. If, through this devious and unhappy route, we are moving into the situation in which we get more effective work done in shorter hours for rates of pay which do not require overtime in order to give
892
men a decent wage, if that indeed is the situation in which we are shortly to find ourselves, then some good has come out of this evil situation.
But. my Lords, there is one other possibility of advance. Throughout the periods of full employment, we have been chronically short in this country of every known category of skill. We shall reflate again one day—sooner, we hope; not later—and once the economy begins to grow this chronic shortage of many categories of skill will be upon us once again. As we all know, we have a large number of unemployed at the present time. Now is the time to take steps to see that when the economy is again working fast we have to hand the people trained and skilled for the jobs for which will then be needed. To my certain knowledge the Department of Employment—under its various changing names—has been studying manpower forecasting for at least the last eight years. The people there are surely now in a position to tell us—and to tell us regionally, because this is how we need to know it—what categories of skill will be in short supply when the economy again begins to grow.
We know that it is the Government's intention to give us before long a review of their plans with regard to industrial training. Surely the thing to do now is to identify these shortages and to begin to bring people into training for the jobs for which they will be needed—in months or, at very worst, in a few years ahead. It may be difficult to get people to accept the reality of this proposition; but once the economy is in full swing it is very difficult to get people to undertake training, because then it is easy to get a job without it. This is our opportunity, if the Government will discover—and it should not be very difficult—where the demand is going to be and will gear the training machine to provide training courses giving opportunities and facilities for men at present out of work; and, I may add, for men of all ages. Enough work has been done to show that there is no great difficulty in teaching old dogs new tricks. We could, if we wished, give skills to many people of capacity who have not had this opportunity in the past. Now is the time to set about doing this, and so turn our present ills to very real advantage.
3.53 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, in rising to support the Resolution of my noble friend Lord Beswick which he introduced in such a brilliant way, it is my duty, my very pleasant duty, to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on a most remarkable maiden speech full of sound common sense and, at the same time, a profound knowledge of certain parts of the industrial scene. I hope very much that we shall hear her from time to time on these topics—more important than which we do not have. I see also that my noble friend, if I may so call him, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, is going to speak in the debate. May I wish him well, indeed the best, for his maiden speech? We shall listen with bated breath, having known him in so many varied and distinguished roles in this country. Before I set out upon what I have to say, may I crave your Lordships' indulgence because a heavy cold makes my accent and my voice even worse than they usually are. I hope that I shall make myself understood even to the Ministers opposite.
My Lords, we are met here together to-day to take stock of the Heath Government's stewardship of our affairs in the past year. The occasion, quite apart from observing anniversaries, good or bad, is of special importance. We are about to receive the full conditions laid down by the Community for our entry; and I shall try to demonstrate to your Lordships a sober evaluation of the consequences of our entry, as against the pipe dreams of the propagandists, enthusiasts, the missionaries and the martyrs—and some of my friends could learn a little from Talleyrand who said "et surtout pas trop de zéle"—will be dependent, indeed determined, by the relative competitive position of this country at the time of entry. That competitive position of the country at entry is determined by present economic policies.
The cost of the Common Agricultural Policy as much as that of the quaint French method of allocating the burdens of the common budget (which has little to do with the national income and even less with the national capacity to pay) are relatively minor matters however heavy they are and will amount at most to 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. of the national
894
income. This is a matter which can be borne if the political and other considerations so counsel it. They are only once and for all burdens once you have paid them, you have paid them, and there is no further drain on the national income. It is the dynamic effects, the impact effects, on our growth which are all-important and it is, I fear, a factor which has not really been much in the forefront of the discussion. This depends mainly on the effectiveness of our policies.
It is seldom if ever that the leaders of political Parties—especially when in Opposition and even more when in the heat of General Election campaigns—can refrain from promising too much. If, as happened last year, the then Leader of the Opposition is clearly menaced by defeat (and therefore personal and political annihilation) the temptation to go to the limits of credibility and well beyond can be understood if, perhaps, not forgiven. The device of the scare is well understood. It has been employed in every Election since the war. Perhaps this fact is not unconnected with the enfranchisement of women but was not unfamiliar even in the old days of "Liberal bashing". Last year the friends of noble Lords opposite outdid themselves in both directions; and I fear that the vulnerability of the Labour Party stemmed from two grave problems. First was the problem of prices and, second, the problem of full employment. We had failed to stem the rise in prices although it had nothing of the ferocity which it has assumed since. Secondly, we had some unemployment although the figure was not as large as it is now. It is on this flank that the attack came and the scare was started. The noble Earl, Lord Cromer, like Mr. Powell more recently, mixed up hot money flows and the current balance of payments. He made the startling accusation that the country was worse off with a current surplus in the balance of payments of £600 million than it had been with a balance-of-payments deficit of £400 million in 1964. He also claimed by implication that hot money deposits were no debt; but that stable credits from the I.M.F. were.
Be that as it may, the Cromer scare—which I called last year "the financial Zinoviev letter"—was taken up by Mr. Heath and, as it were, at a stroke sounded much more probable. A new devaluation

895
and a wage freeze were predicted if Labour were not defeated. On the other hand, he promised to deal with inflation and unemployment. I do not wish to get involved in the semantic evolutions of the scholastic debate about that famous "stroke". There can be no doubt that Mr. Heath obviously believed that monetary manipulation could deal with inflation; that tax remissions would induce investment and that that would induce an increase in productivity and finally also in consumption, to deal with unemployment. He based himself on an ardent belief in the market mechanism and made extravagant promises on that basis. What is very interesting is that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, should now—after a year of complete ill success—more or less repeat the whole of this very sad story. The Government, like the Bourbons, have forgotten nothing and learned nothing. Mr. Heath now says that many of his Ministers, like so many Red Guards or Bolshie Mandarins, appear at Cabinet meetings with a little blue book and tick off pledges one by one. This shows how justified was my subconscious when it made me mix up the Tory Manifesto with the Communist Manifesto the other day—much to the amusement of noble Lords.
I must say, my Lords, it is a sweet picture. I picture the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, brandishing a blue book and ticking off pledge by pledge, and 57—no, my Lords, I am sorry, 79—pledges, according to Mr. Heath, have already been fulfilled. That is more than the varieties that Heinz produces. It is quite easy to fulfil a pledge to introduce legislation threatening to bash unions, or to exclude non-patrials. Nor is it difficult to sell off profitable businesses or to grant oil and gas licences under ludicrously favourable conditions, mainly to Americans; certainly not to British companies. What is much more difficult is to make the economic system work effectively and for the benefit of all, and to achieve stability and full employment. If Bromsgrove is to be believed, or Hayes and Harlington, the important pledges have not yet been redeemed; stabilisation of prices, resumption of the expansion of the economy—all these are outstanding affairs. Yet noble Lords opposite and their friends had a vast external surplus to play with,
896
thanks to the austerity of Messrs. Wilson and Jenkins.
The problem of inflation is at the root of our discontent. It is a fundamental problem. It afflicts all countries. It cannot be escaped cheaply or at no inconvenience. It finds its explanation in the basic change of character in the industrial system. It is not a question of a sudden emergency; it is a structural consequence of the deep-seated structural change which has to be dealt with. This change in the industrial system is reflected in a tremendous concentration of economic power in the fewer and fewer independent firms, which are able to manage their prices, manipulate their tastes and influence demand for their products. They can, within relevant limits, set their prices. Consequently, price movements are kept closely related to cost movements. Two most important consequences follow. On the one hand, the real effectiveness of trade unions is thwarted. They are able only to increase money wages; and the increase in prices nullifies their striving for a larger slice of the national cake in the form of increased real income. On the other hand, firms will find that they have little to gain and much to lose from opposing wage claims because of the tremendous loss which they may suffer from a strike. The more restrictionist the policy of the Government the less, and not more, can industries afford to have strikes.
Nor is this all. This higher level of employment which has been achieved since the war in all countries has wrought a similar change in the balance between employers and trade unions. This achievement has been by far the most outstanding social achievement. It gave a completely different non-class war aspect to our social life. It changed the relationship between the bosses and the workers. In this new ambience no head of a democratic Government can feel politically safe if he fails to sustain full employment, whatever the reason or excuse for the failure.
If this evaluation is correct, momentous consequences follow. On the one hand it is clear that stability and full employment cannot be combined on the basis of market forces; only through conscious social and economic policies. Global economic measures, acting

897
indirectly through the variation of money demand, become impotent to secure the necessary reconciliation of aims under a free-for-all. This is as true of fiscal policy, Budget surpluses and deficits as it is of monetary policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, spoke about the difficulty of implementing this policy. Of course it is difficult, my Lords, other-wise we should not have failed to do so in every country in the world for thirty years. But that does not mean that it is impossible; nor does it mean that there is any other way out.
And it is owing to the total failure to appreciate the nature of our fundamental problem that Mr. Heath's experiment, like Mr. Nixon's before him, was such a total failure that it turned out absolutely differently from what he hoped that it would. Not only has the rise in wages continued in both countries but the balance between the public and private sectors has been destroyed. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, declaiming that the system of market forces has produced a greater harmony in wages. Look at the difference between the public sector and the private sector wages, and dare to say that again! The trend of unemployment again is upwards. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, claims that it has risen less. Of course it has; it is May. Does not the noble Lord know that unemployment is subject to seasonal fluctuations?
A NOBLE LORD: It is June.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, despite the fact that this conjecture should stimulate exports, exports have not been stimulated; they are flat so far as volume is concerned. Indeed, our exports to the Common Market have fallen and not risen in a situation in which world trade has been expanding rather vigorously. Should recovery start, imports would shoot ahead, because there would be restocking, and exports would come under pressure. The restlessness of the trade unions may now be dampened by the rise in unemployment, but their bitterness is not. The two Budgets, which increased the burden on the average and even more on the highly skilled man and yet seemed to favour the top salary and dividend receivers, contributed further to the militancy; and at the same time investment is falling. The victory of the
898
quasi laissez-faire approach which hopes for a solution through attacks on trade union strength through direct regulation and indirectly through unemployment, is ephemeral. It involves stagnation and it would not be viable politically for any length of time. No sooner would a recovery start—and recover we must, if we are to start modernising the country—than wage demands would multiply and increase. Yet a permanent deflation is obviously impossible; the Government would lose the election, and they will lose every single by-election.
My Lords, it is in this context that we must discuss the problem of our entry into Europe. We must not forget that it is not merely the European market which will be open to us; our markets will be open to them and, our industries being more highly protected now than those in Europe, our concessions will be greater and the increase in our imports will probably be much higher. These considerations have not daunted the Government in their drive to restore the "market mechanism". Indeed, Mr. Davies seems to consider a general unilateral cut in tariffs. Yet there is a further danger: that is, that if our distribution of income is not approaching that of the Continent, which is much worse for labour, then obviously there will be a constant threat of the export of capital to Europe. These are the important determinants of our fate within the Common Market. It is these problems, and not sugar or New Zealand dairy products, which should focus interest. The agricultural policy and its impact is important mainly in so far as it might make a reasonable arrangement with the trade unions impossible.
One is therefore bound to conclude that a plunge into the Market before we have dealt with our economic malaise through a consensus on incomes and costs and therefore relative competitiveness, a plunge in order to cure our economic weakness through "free market forces", is an undertaking fraught with the utmost economic, social and political risks. It would certainly and seriously aggravate the relative position of the working class in this country. If we were condemned to be a relatively stagnant and impoverished region of a prosperous and aggressively vigorous Continent, the sweetness of life which has characterised

899
Britain until the coming of the barren Heath will quickly depart without that forcible reinvigoration for which noble Lords opposite and their friends secretly hope.
Those friends of mine who can perceive no difference between the terms that looked likely before the General's second veto and those which we are now about to be given suffer, I fear, from a double misapprehension. In the first place, the financial bias against import-oriented economies, and especially against food importers, has considerably increased. This, as I have said, however, is not a decisive argument. Much more serious is that our capacity to bear any burden has been severely undermined by the reckless irresponsibility of the Government's divisive policy. Mr. Heath, by his class warfare, his attack on the unions and his Budget, has destroyed the possibility of a consensus and produced a situation in which a favourable and civilised solution of our economic problems and of our wages problems is impossible. Whatever might be the advantages of a large market to the strong, the weak and the divided cannot expect to inherit this new earth. Those noble Lords who, with great sincerity, hope to derive strength and prestige for this country from membership will soon be cruelly undeceived. This Government has forfeited all claims to leadership. The sooner it exhausts its ill-gotten majority in Parliament, the better. It was conceived in a lie, born into deceit and bids fair to end in a catastrophe.

EAST PAKISTAN: RELIEF SITUATION
4.13 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene in the proceedings in order to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker. and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement. My
900
right honourable friend the Prime Minister and I both had discussions on Monday, June 21, with Mr. Swaran Singh, the Indian Minister of External Affairs, during which be made clear to us the concern which his Government feel about the situation in East Pakistan and the very great burden created by the massive influx into India.
" Following the recent meeting of the India Aid Consortium, Her Majesty's Government are making available a further £5 million in cash or in kind, to relieve the economic burden on the Government of India of supporting the refugees. Like other members of the Consortium, we are giving this contribution over and above our normal developmental aid to India. In addition, a further £1 million will be made available by Her Majesty's Government to U Thant's appeal for the direct relief of refugees in India. The total amount of assistance made available by Her Majesty's Government for relief and rehabilitation in India will thus be increased to over £8 million. This is a humanitarian task, having no relationship to politics, in which I hope very many members of the United Nations will participate. Some twenty-three have so far done so.s
" An informal meeting of members of the Pakistan Aid Consortium on June 21 considered reports from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund representatives who had been visiting East Pakistan and had held discussions with the Government in Islamabad. No commitments of new aid of any kind were called for, nor were any given, though all expressed their willingness to contribute to humanitarian relief in East Pakistan under the effective surveillance of the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that projects already in hand in Pakistan must continue, in so far as this is possible, but there can be no question of new British aid to Pakistan until we have firm evidence that real progress is being made towards a political solution.
" Conditions in East Pakistan continue to be disturbed. It is with great regret that I have to inform the House that two British subjects, Mr. P. J. Chalmers and Mr. J. Y. Boyd, both of whom were working on tea-planting

901
estates in the Sylhet district, have been reported missing. Despite attempts by British representatives both in East Pakistan and in India and inquiries made through the Pakistan Martial Law Administration and the Indian Government, we have been unable to obtain any definite news of them. In the circumstances there must be grave fear for their safety and I would express the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure of the whole House, to their relatives in this country at this anxious time.
" The President of Pakistan has reiterated his Government's hope that those who have fled across the border to India will return to their homes, and has undertaken that they will have no cause to fear should they do so. Her Majesty's Government have represented to him the importance of restoring peaceful conditions in which confidence can once again take root and normal political life can be resumed."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for repeating that Statement. First of all, the whole House will want to associate itself with the deep sympathy expressed to the relatives of the two British nationals in their very great anxiety at this moment. We should like to welcome the increased aid to India. This is an appalling situation under which the Indian Government and the Indian people are suffering. This is a long-term problem and cannot be solved overnight, and we should hope that further aid will be forthcoming not only from the United Nations in general but from this country, too.
I think the House will particularly welcome the fact that we now know that the Pakistan Government have granted facilities to the Press to go into East Pakistan to see the situation there and report it to the world. We welcome what Her Majesty's Government have said in this Statement about the importance of restoring peaceful conditions in which confidence can once again take root. A political settlement, of course, is the basis of this matter, and I wonder if the noble Marquess can tell the House whether the Government have under consideration approaching the United
902
Nations—U Thant, or the Security Council itself—with a view to getting assistance towards securing a political settlement. Without that none of the aid will be worth anything like what it should be worth.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, we are sorry indeed to hear the sad news about Mr. Chalmers and Mr. Boyd and wish to be associated with the sentiments of sympathy which have been expressed. We commend Her Majesty's Government for the substantial new donation they have made to aid to the refugees. This will not be the last amount this country will have to put forward for, as the noble Baroness has said, this is a long-term matter.
May I ask just one question? Reference has been made to a statement elsewhere about a political solution. We have asked about this on other occasions. Can the noble Marquess say what initiative, if any, or what action, is being taken towards a political solution? It is going to be a long-term operation, but is anybody doing anything?
4.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for their reception of this Statement. Of course this is a long-term problem, and we shall be looking again at the position regarding further aid. For the time being, we feel that we should prefer to wait and see in what way we can help any further. The noble Baroness asked me whether there was any possibility in the mind of the Government of in some way referring this tragic matter to the Security Council of the United Nations. As I said on a previous occasion, our feeling at the moment is that if there is to be any reference to the Security Council it should come either from the Government of India or from the Government of Pakistan.
We ourselves have been making strong representations to the President of Pakistan about the need for a political settlement. One can take some encouragement. as the noble Baroness said, from the fact that he is now allowing foreign journalists to go into East Pakistan, and also from the fact that a United Nations relief presence is being set up there. I think

903
this all points to the fact that the President is anxious for a settlement. We are of course awaiting a statement that I understand he is due to make on June 28. Possibly it would be as well to wait and see what the President of East Pakistan has to say on that occasion before deciding whether any further action is necessary.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating what has been done, is it not terribly inadequate? Is not this tragedy the worst that has happened in the human race since the bomb fell on Hiroshima? It is six weeks now since this trouble all began, and the Minister is still saying, "Wait and see". Is it not desirable that immediate action should be taken? Rather than wait for India and Pakistan, should not action be taken by this Government, for humanitarian purposes, to get the Security Council to meet and, first, to ask all Governments to contribute towards the relief of the unspeakable distress; and secondly, to work out a political solution by which the people of East Bengal may be able to determine their own future?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think there is any need for the Security Council to meet to appeal to the world for relief. This has already been done by the Secretary-General. I am glad to say that the response is definitely encouraging, and it is improving. Of course the noble Lord is right in saying that this is a terrible problem, not only from a humanitarian point of view, but also from the political point of view. I must confess, however, that I think at this stage we have to press on the Pakistani authorities the need for them to achieve a political settlement, because unless that is done, I cannot myself see the situation ever being resolved satisfactorily.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on the steps they have taken towards this relief; I think that they have done an excellent job. I would just say that I think it is something that we in this country in any case owe towards the inhabitants of East Pakistan. I think the noble Marquess referred to the return of the refugees. That, surely, is impossible unless one takes clear political
904
steps, because in that part of the country one has a very difficult situation indeed (probably only comparable to that in Northern Ireland) where one has, on the one hand, a number of Muslim Zemindars who actually own the land, and, on the other, a number of Hindus, often peasants, who occupy the land and farm it. These latter are the people who have fled in terror from East Pakistan. This becomes a serious problem. Would the noble Marquess not agree that it is something—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD ABERDARE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, who is making an extremely interesting speech, but it is normal to put questions on these Statements. We have the gist of his meaning now, and perhaps he can put his question.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I appreciate that; but I still think that what I am saying is in general framed in terms of a question. I would ask whether Her Majesty's Government, in meeting the urgent demand for these refugees to get back to East Pakistan, will now proceed to exercise upon the Government of Pakistan their greatest influence to see that what is necessary in order to get these refugees back home is done, because it seems to me that until that happens, the situation will be impossible.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way he has pinpointed this problem. I will certainly undertake to pass his remarks on to my right honourable friend. As I said before, I think one can take some comfort from the fact that a United Nations presence is now being established in East Pakistan, because, as the noble Lord has said, there is no possibility of anyone wishing to return there until there is some sense of security. I hope that this may be a step on the road.
LORD OAKSHOTT: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions. First of all, is be aware that we on these Benches, like the noble Baroness opposite. would wish to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on their generosity and the initiative they have taken? I only express the wish that other countries will follow that example. Secondly, is my noble friend now satisfied

905
that the relief supplies, the arrival of which was interrupted for a time, are now getting through?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. My understanding is that the supplies to India are now being cleared quite quickly. One of the problems has been a shortage of transport to remove the relief supplies from the airports to the points where they are needed. The United Nations' High Commissioner has asked us whether we can help in any way—for example, by an airlift. This is something that is under consideration at the moment.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I am very glad indeed that the noble Marquess spoke as he did about the desirability of a political settlement. I think the whole House will await with interest the statement that is to be made by the President on June 28, and we shall also await with a lively interest the reactions of Her Majesty's Government to that statement.

ECONOMIC POLICY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE
4.28 p.m.
Debate resumed:
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I am not going to follow the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, in his arguments in detail, because I find that when I try to do so I am apt to get tangled up—and some of my listeners, if any, also get tangled up. But I should like to support the noble Lord cordially in the tribute that he paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on her admirable maiden speech. She succeeded excellently in achieving what is a difficult feat in a maiden speech—that is, of being extremely interesting and appropriately non-controversial. We admired her eloquence, and I personally admired very much her capacity to speak without notes. I was touched by her saying that it was never too late to teach an old dog new tricks. I am an old dog, and I am very much in the mood when I want to learn some new tricks. Having paid tribute to the noble Baroness for speaking without notes, I turn to my own sheaf of notes.
I am sad, in a way, that I am not speaking later, because I should have
906
liked to pay tribute to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth, to which we are going to listen with interest later on. If, my Lords, he should say precisely the opposite to what I am going to say, it will be just one more proof of the many sidedness of truth.
My Lords, I listened with interest to the generally moderate and thoughtful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and if I have anything hostile to say about it I should like to get that off straight away. If I understood his quarrels with the present Government's policies correctly, they were that these policies were in rather violent conflict with those of the last Government and that they did not seem to be producing good results. I should like to say a word or two under both headings. To start with, may I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor because an engagement which I should simply hate to cancel to-night will make it impossible for me to listen to the winding-up speeches. I shall, however, read them with great interest.
With great respect, Lord Beswick seemed to be advocating a return to the policies of the last Government; but these were really not successful. Under them we had to devalue for a second time under a Labour Government, the prices and incomes policy, which that Government told us was basic to their economic policy, collapsed in ruins, unofficial stoppages proliferated and the pressures of the present bout of inflation, the most serious that we have yet experienced, were mounting day by day. I think it was apparent to everyone in the country that the then Government had no more shots in their locker, and I believe that if Mr. Heath's Government were to pursue the same discredited policies they would be deserving of the censure of the nation.
What the present Government did was to look back over the past 25 years at the policies of both Labour Governments and Conservative Governments and, in the light of the relatively slow growth and severe rises in costs that Britain had experienced over those 25 years, try to see what mistakes had been made. One thing that I think was clear was that whenever we attempted to accelerate rapidly the rate of growth we ran into

907
balance-of-payments troubles. Another thing which became clear—and this applied during the post-war period under both Governments—was that the remedies we applied for our economic ills turned out to be largely palliatives and seldom got down to the basic causes of our low productivity and poorish national performance. Government subsidies, subventions and interventions often concealed the real causes of rising prices. So I think it is not surprising that the present Government—and it is greatly to their credit—are trying to tackle our economic ills by getting down to basic causes.
It is unnecessary to remind ourselves that the kind of inflation from which we are suffering at present is what economists call the cost-push variety, and, unfortunately, both here and in other countries, Governments seem at a loss to deal with that type of inflation. But one thing that most economists here and in the United States agree on is that you cannot by expansion and demand spend your way out of a bout of cost inflation, so long as that cost inflation is running in full flood. The bout we are currently suffering from is so severe that there seems no doubt that, unless the current rise in costs can be moderated, we shall be in balance-of-payments difficulties again within the foreseeable future. Therefore the priority task of the Government is to try to bring about some abatement in the rate rises in wages and other money incomes, and thus break the vicious circle of rising costs and prices; and until some abatement can be achieved they dare not allow demand to be much expanded. It is difficult to see what alternative course the Government could pursue in present circumstances.
Fortunately, I believe—and I was interested to hear that my noble friend Lord Aberdare also believes this—that the exceptionally and disastrously rapid rise in incomes that we have experienced over the past 18 months is showing some signs now of moderating somewhat. One hears now of pay settlements of 8 to 10 per cent. as against those of 10 to 15 per cent. six months or a year ago. If, indeed, the fever has passed the peak, that is good news in itself, and it will open the way to a cautious re-expansion of demand before long. What I think would be absolute madness would be to Panic view into an irresponsible expan-
908
sion of demand that would very soon put us back again into a situation worse than before, when incomes and prices would be rising still faster. The price of this austere anti-inflation policy in terms of unemployment and under-use of resources and stagnation in investment is high. It is high, too, in the United States and Canada, but in those countries also the current pressure of inflation seems to be showing some signs at last of dropping. if the disease can be eradicated, then the price, though high, will be worth it.
I may be asked, "Is the price worth it for those without jobs?" That is a serious question, for to be without a job is a heartbreaking experience for almost all people, and the highest level of employment that can be attained and maintained without serious inflation is a proper and necessary aim of any Government in this country, as it is of the present Government; and I hope it always will be. But the best service to those whose jobs are insecure or have disappeared is to create conditions in which a steady and sustainable rate of expansion can be secured. It is those, after all, with the lowest incomes who are hit hardest by the cruel pressures of inflation.
Does this mean that disinflationary measures must be pressed with full vigour until the last ounce of inflation has been squeezed out of the system? That would be desirable, but I believe it is neither practicable nor necessary to go so far as that. At some point when the fever is shown to be declining, the level of activity can safely begin to be restimulated. When and how much is the question, and past experience—and here I am not speaking only of a Labour Government—shows how easy it is to go wrong. If the controlling knobs of the economy are turned too violently or too soon, then we have the old familiar "Stop-Go " result—though in retrospect that much derided " Stop-Go" seems to have been a fairly mild swing of the pendulum as compared with what we have experienced in the last few years. My belief, which I put forward with great diffidence because ten years ago, when for two and a half years I was temporarily in charge of some of the controlling knobs, I did not by any means always get my timing judgments right—my noble friend Lord Boyle may say

909
that was a masterly understatement—is that although at present the reflationary effects of the Budget have not yet had time to be felt and they will help considerably as they do become effective, there is a danger that they may be outweighed by declining business confidence and shrinking industrial investment. Neither of those things can be changed in a moment.
I should therefore like to see two things happen: first, a renewed attempt by the Government, the trade unions and the C.B.I. to work out some kind of voluntary incomes policy. You can call it by any name you like; I am going to call it an understanding, a framework—some understanding that would set the limits within which at any given time (I emphasise those words) free bargaining may take place and the maximum rate of improvement be effected without danger to the national economy. Not, my Lords, a wage freeze; I am not suggesting that. That is something very rigid which may be necessary in a real emergency, but which really does not help you by itself along the road. On the contrary, I should like to see an understanding that would, in its content, evolve as circumstances changed and be kept under continuous review by some joint body, such as the N.E.D.C. In its early days it would have to use a restraining influence, but I should think it a mistake if we looked on such a policy simply as being a policy of restraint, and I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said about that. I look upon it as a policy which has as its aim recommending to the nation what is the most rapid rate of improvement we can afford without damage to our national prospects.
The second thing I should like to see happen would be against the background of the first: some cautious move in the direction of reflation before long, unless the statistics, when they come along, show that the impression that some of us have that the peak of the fever has passed should turn out to be wrong. If the statistics showed that it was wrong, my argument collapses absolutely. I believe that if they show that the pressure of inflation is declining, then it may be that the time is coming when there could be a cautious move in the direction of reflation. This may have to be very modest
910
at first, but it could be increased in proportion to the success of the tripartite incomes policy as it developed. The more positively that this policy was implemented, obviously the further the stimulation of the economy could safely go. Such a voluntary incomes policy, if it comes into existence, if it is to provide a solid basis for reflation must be more specific and effective than just a declaration of intent, and it would have to be backed by a large measure of public assent. Whether that measure of public assent exists at present I am not quite sure, but I think that every effort ought to be concentrated now on building up a public opinion which would think this sensible to do. Once you have a wide measure of assent I believe you are, with good will, half way towards your objective.
It may be said that a voluntary incomes policy has been tried and has broken down. Nevertheless, I believe that it is immensely in the real interests of all concerned—the unions, employers. the Government and everyone else—that a new attempt should be made; and in the light of recent experience it may well be that we shall be able to hammer out something better and more practical and enduring than the first effort. I agree with what was said: that because you fail once in a field like this, with something as difficult as this, there is no reason not to try again. Do not make the same mistakes again, but have a shot at it because this is something which, if it succeeds, will create new hope and prospects for the whole of the industrialised world.
What I would feel deeply about is if we have to acknowledge that there is no possible basis for national agreement about such a matter. If we have to fall back, as we should have to do then, on power bargaining, the future is indeed bleak. Any reflation ought, so far as possible, to be export and investment led. That is difficult. The difficulty is that industrial investment is very closely linked to the current level of demand. One encouraging factor in the present situation is (and again it is only my impression, because nowadays I am very bad at carrying statistics in my head) that statistics are beginning to show that our national rate of productivity is rising

911
rather faster than it was. If that is so, it is very important, because here is something that will improve our national performance in a vitally important field.
My Lords, in conclusion, although the increases in costs that have been and still are taking place will inevitably cause prices to rise further, I believe there is some hope that the peak of inflationary pressure may, with luck, have passed. Everything depends on the level of wage and salary settlements in the short term continuing to moderate. If they do, then the way may soon be open for the encouragement of a cautious rate of re-expansion. When that can safely be done it will be precisely in line with the present Government's policies, and I know that no one will be more eager to take the necessary steps to implement it than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him a question? What he said sounded like common sense and was also very moderate. Does he think that after the last Budget, which increased the take-home pay of top salaried people by anything up to 50 per cent., and after the Industrial Relations Bill—after all these measures which have been aggressively hostile to a large part of our population—one can then hope for a unilateral agreement on wages alone? How does he imagine that can be done? There are differences of opinion. On the point of consensus, you cannot mix up hard bargaining between monopolies and consensus. This is the real problem.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I will, if your Lordships will allow me, try to answer Lord Balogh's question, but I must not make another speech. The short answer is that I believe just what I have said. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was good enough to say that it sounded common sense; I believe that it was common sense. I happen to think that the last Budget, for the needs of the nation, was absolutely right. I also happen to believe that the Industrial Relations Bill will give us exactly the legal framework that we need in order that people will know where they are and be able to pursue free negotiations within reasonable limits.
LORD SHACKLETON: Order, order!
VISCOUNT AMORY: What the ordinary man in the street wants to know is that the Government's policies are policies that are going to be effective in curing this inflationary disease and getting us on to the right lines as a nation again. If it is proved that they are, the man in the street will cordially support them, both in advance and in retrospect. Having said that I was not going to make another speech, I have done so. I apologise profoundly.
4.50 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords. the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, has said a number of things we are bound to agree with. Particularly may I say that I join with him in offering congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and in the welcome he extended to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth. However, the noble Viscount indulged in a number of strictures on the previous Labour Government. I would say this briefly in reply to him. I have no doubt that, had the people of this country appreciated in June of last year what they were in for, we should not have had this present Conservative Government but a Labour Government returned with a substantial majority.
To turn to one or two points which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. made when he spoke earlier in the debate. he criticised the Labour Government for their failure to secure acceptance of an incomes policy. At least the Labour Government tried as no Government had tried before, and if it was a tragedy that they were unable to obtain acceptance of a voluntary incomes policy, at least it was a noble failure and they ought to be given credit for having tried to find a way. Certainly this Government have little room to criticise them at the present time for they appear to have produced no incomes policy at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, spoke of the rise in wages slowing down. Does he also claim that there is a slowing down in the rise of prices? He said that there had been a check so far as rises in the public sector were concerned, but he carefully avoided saving that there had been anything like the same check, or the same attempt to check, in rises in the private sector. If in point of fact prices continue to increase, is it any wonder

913
that the worker is demanding increased wages to meet rising prices? And are those rising prices, if there has been no check, to an extent the cause of the continuing demand for increased wages?
The noble Lord also referred to the problem of unemployment and said that this Government had no intention of turning away from achieving full employment. It would be very meaningful if one of the newly unemployed in this country were in this House and able to rise and tell us this afternoon what he thought of the Government's success in working towards full employment. For I find the increase in unemployment that has taken place, and the indication that we can expect no early reduction, most disturbing. I speak as one who, early in his life, had a period of unemployment. Unemployment is not a matter of just statistics it is one of the most demoralising experiences a man can have. This afternoon, while thinking about this problem of unemployment, I am at least grateful to the extent that the Labour Government introduced redundancy payments and wage-regulated benefits. To that extent many people have been cushioned against the hardships which used to be endured in olden days.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, claimed credit for an increase in the retirement pension. What he did not say was that the old age pensioner was going to have to wait 15 months after the Election of this Government before getting it, and when he gets it nearly all of it will have been eroded. If prices continue to rise at the present level, that increase certainly will be eroded by March of next year. So far as the increase is concerned, most pensioners feel that it is too little and too late.
The best way I know of giving a man a sense of dignity is to ensure that he has a job in which he can earn a wage which provides for the needs of his family. If that be accepted throughout this House, then this Motion this afternoon is fully justified. The Motion refers to unemployment, and in April unemployment was running at over 800,000. As I said a moment ago, there is at the present time no sign of a reduction in this connection. It ought to be noted that it is the less prosperous regions of Britain which have been hit hardest. As I understand it, unemployment in North-West England
914
is up by 31 per cent. since the present Government took office; in Scotland it is up by 35 per cent., and in East Anglia it is up by 49 per cent.
The Motion also refers to prices, and in the past year there have been more than 8,000 increases in the prices of groceries. Milk has spiralled in price by 25 per cent., with more to come very soon. New Zealand butter has risen in price by 50 per cent.; margarine by 30 per cent., and tea by 26 per cent. As has been admitted, very substantial increases in the prices of other commodities and services have occurred also. One could continue in this connection, but most of us are agreed that somehow we must find the answers to these problems; somewhere the line must be held. There are those who say that wages must be held down. The Government's only policy, if it can be called a policy, seems to be one of holding increases to a fixed percentage. I doubt very much that this can succeed, if only because little is being done at the present time to narrow differentials, not only differentials within individual industries but also differentials as between industries and occupations.
Overall percentage increases serve only to increase actual differences. It does not make sense when the man earning thousands gets the same percentage increase as the dustman; and it is unreasonable to expect the underpaid and underprivileged to accept a percentage that widens the gaps that are so often already too wide. We need an incomes policy which takes account of the social value of many jobs which are unattractive or relatively so; an incomes policy which ensures for all workers a sense of dignity, and an incomes policy which secures a rising standard of living, particularly for those at the lower levels.
I have no doubt that it will be said—and indeed I think it was implied earlier in the debate—that the new family income supplement will take care of the lowest paid workers. I have the feeling that this kind of exercise is taking us back into the last century. For what is this family income supplement business but a glorified system of subsidising low wages?—and the whole structure of so-called selective benefits fits in neatly with such a concept. It is a concept which takes the lowest level of wages below subsistence level, and the very operation

915
of these means-tested benefits will militate against the people concerned in making an effort to rise above this level. The reason is not too difficult to find, for if, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said when he opened this debate, their earnings rise, then their claim to family income supplement decreases and their entitlement to the other means-tested benefits dwindles; although how most of them will calculate just what they are entitled to claim for family income supplement—free prescriptions, free dental and optical treatment, free milk and welfare foods for the under-fives, rent rebates and rates rebates—is a matter for conjecture. for all these different schemes seem to have different scales for applying the means test. In fact, it seems to me that a person needing these benefits almost needs a chartered accountant to help him work the position out. and if he has the intelligence to work it out I should have thought he would apply his mind and efforts to endeavouring to secure decent wages so that he could maintain his family with dignity.
I believe that, so far as the lowest wage earners are concerned, the position is further complicated by liability to income tax, for I am told that there is a point at which a modest rise in wages increases liability to tax and at the same time brings the income above the levels of some of the means tests and can thereby result in the wage earner being worse off than he was on the lower wage. But we know that many who are entitled to benefits are not claiming them. If I understand correctly what was said in the other place on April 27, at that time something like three quarters of those entitled to claim free milk and welfare foods, prescription charges and the rest, had failed to apply. It may well be that some of those who failed to apply did not understand that they were entitled to benefits; and it may well be—and I think it is the case—that others have a sense of pride which prevents them applying.
On May 26 I asked a Question about the fall in the numbers of children taking school meals, and in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, referred to "free school meals". In connection with free school meals, there is a scale laid down (another means test here, too) which I
916
think will not be easily understood by those who may be thought to be claimants. Indeed, if the Government want people to understand what they are entitled to, then I think that the advice they give will have to be a great deal clearer and the way in which they send the information out will have to be improved.
I have a feeling that we are in danger of becoming the most means-tested society in the world, largely because of a determination to make the rich richer and the poor relatively poorer, which in point of fact is what the reduction of 6d. in income tax, the cuts in the school meals and other services that have been mentioned, have achieved.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? Perhaps I may remind him that the free milk scheme for children was introduced by Lord Woolton as Minister of Food in the year 1940, and that in that year the position of this country was much more desperate than it is in the year 1971.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, for his intervention. My recollection also goes back to the days when, in order to get anything free at school, children needed to be certified by the medical officer as being so undernourished that they could not take advantage of the education offered them, and it needed a war to persuade many people who opposed the Labour Party's policies that the kind of policy that we had been advocating ought to be put into effect. Of course, many things were started during the war. Personally, I should like to get back to the concept on which school meals were started. It was intended that they, too, would be free, and I think it would be an excellent thing if we could get away from all these means-tested schemes. Many of the old schemes would be better if we could revert to them. I am not proud of some of the things that the Labour Government did in regard to them. I am not proud of the role that Labour played in introducing prescription charges. I wish they had not done so, and I think that as a Party we have to be big enough to say that. We wish they had not done it and we hope that

917
the time will come when they will introduce once again a completely free Health Service.
When we pay, as most of us do, contributions to such things as the Health Service, whether by way of graduated contributions or tax, we ought not to have to pay again when we need that service, and I believe that increasingly the selective principle, so loved by the present Government, will be resented—and when I say "increasingly" I believe that the resentment will grow and grow. I think it will cause more people to turn against this Government and persuade more people not to support them, as has been indicated in the recent by-elections.
The Motion speaks of increasing unemployment and rising prices; it draws attention to the stagnation of the economy and the unfairness of the rewards as between one section of the community and the other. It is a Motion which is concerned with the quality of life of the British people and the prosperity of our nation. As I understand it, the Motion calls for a recognition that we are members of one community, with much the same basic needs, with entitlement to useful employment and wages that secure a sense of dignity. It calls for recognition that we are one nation and it would end the policies now being pursued, which are divisive because they offend against the principle of enlightened social justice.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, it is a great honour to address this House for the first time, and I should like to thank a number of noble Lords, on both sides of the House, who have kindly welcomed me personally in their speeches this afternoon. I have what I genuinely believe to be one of the most covetable jobs in the country. I cannot imagine either a more stimulating or a more friendly atmosphere in which to work than the University of Leeds. My sole regret is that for most of the year I shall have little opportunity for attending debates in your Lordships' House. The only thing I would add is that the fact that your Lordships have not seen more headlines in the Press during the last year about the University of Leeds will, I hope, he regarded as a good excuse for my absence.
918
With many of the remarks about the Government made by the noble Lord who introduced the Motion I could not, of course, associate myself. Nevertheless, this debate is timely, and it is no good anyone trying to conceal from himself the fact that virtually all the key indicators for Britain's economy are depressing at the present time. Unemployment stands at 720,000, and I think how that figure would have distressed the late Mr. Iain MacLeod, had he been Chancellor of the Exchequer to-day. Indeed, I look upon his death as one of the greatest tragedies to any Government and to British politics since the war.
The average level of wage settlements is still 12 per cent. and in fact I think the numbers of workers covered by those settlements is starting to move up again. Prices are still rising at an annual rate of nearly 10 per cent. Output almost certainly fell in the first quarter of this year, and I wonder whether upon that subject I might put one question to the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, who is to reply to the debate. In the Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave two forecasts. He forecast that between the first half of 1971 and the first half of 1972 the gross domestic product would rise by 3 per cent., and that personal consumption would rise by 5·3 per cent. Do the Government still stand by those forecasts?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to say so, he is going faster than my pen will write.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; I habitually speak too fast. In the Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer forecast that between the first half of 1971 and the first half of 1972 the gross domestic product would rise by 3 per cent. and personal consumption by 5·3 per cent. I wonder whether the Government still stand by those forecasts. I should have thought that, in retrospect, they would have to be seen as being too optimistic.
In addition. we know that the capital investment intentions of industry (and regard this as being extremely serious) have never been lower since our present system of forecasting was introduced,

919
some sixteen years ago. Lastly, we have had no significant rise in the volume of exports since the second half of 1969. There is likely to be a considerable rise in the value of exports, but I think no one can feel altogether happy at the thought that our export prices are rising even faster than our domestic prices.
There is one other feature of the present situation—the postponement of the decision on entering the European Economic Community. I realise, as I am sure we all do, that this postponement was necessary, but it has added to the uncertainty which is helping to keep investment intentions at a low level. Of course it is equally true that the high rate of unemployment, coupled with the continuing severe inflation, will make it more difficult for the Government to convince the country of the rightness of the judgment that we should now enter the E.E.C. I think one should remember the fact of this uncertainty in adding to the economic difficulties of the present time, and also that the present economic situation is bound, in its turn, to make the Government's task of persuasion harder.
Before I go on to make one or two suggestions as to what should now be done, I would just say to the supporters of the Motion that I feel the present Government inherited a much more difficult situation than many commentators have always recognised. I would remind the House of this fact: that in the famous television broadcast to which reference has often been made, both the noble Earl, Lord Cromer, and the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, who said that he himself was politically sympathetic to the then Government, recognised the great difficulties that any Government returned in June last year would have to face. I think the Government did inherit a difficult situation, because one of the most serious events of the 'sixties was the disappointment of the expectations aroused by the National Plan.
The National Plan raised expectations about the growth of real wages which simply were not realised after 1966, and particularly were not realised after 1968. If anyone doubts that let me say that the most striking figures I have seen were in an article by Professor Hicks, who I
920
think would generally be considered a pretty impartial economist, which appeared in September, 1970, and in which he showed the dramatic decline the increase of personal consumption which took place after 1968. And it was the disappointment of the expectations aroused by the National Plan which I believe has much to do with many of the most acute difficulties that we face to-day. The failure to realise those expectations has had a great deal to do with the exceptionally strong upward pressure of money wages attempting to recover the position. And, of course, another contributory factor was devaluation. Each time since the war that we have devalued the pound, in 1949 and in 1967, there has been exceptionally strong wage pressure in response. I mention this because I never cease to be amazed at those who believe that what is euphemistically called floating the pound "in the circumstances of Britain to-day could be a relatively painless way out of our difficulties. My Lords, there is no painless solution that way.
What should be done in the present circumstances? I must say I do not quite agree with those noble Lords who have spoken and suggested that they would be extremely cautious about reflation at the present time. I believe that some further measure of reflation is needed quickly if unemployment is to be held on a plateau, if confidence is to be maintained and not to become seriously eroded, and if the European policy is to carry conviction with a sufficiently large section of public opinion. Secondly—and here may I say I would endorse all that was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory—I am sure we cannot shirk the issue of trying to work out the elements of a new incomes policy. To any sceptics in your Lordships' House I would simply say this: we all agree inflation is continuing at far too high a rate, and we all know that at current levels of unemployment any further deflation of demand is really unthinkable. It was Mr. Maudling in a remarkable speech at Aylesbury some years ago who reminded us that it is possible to have acute wage pressure in one part of the economy and at the same time rising unemployment in other parts of the economy. I do not think Mr. Maudling in his more gloomy moments—and he is not particularly prone to gloomy moments

921
—would have guessed then how much his words have been borne out in practice. What other alternative is there than a return to the admittedly stony path on which Mr. Selwyn Lloyd embarked ten years ago?
It must first of all be publicly recognised as Government policy, not just to" de-escalate" wage claims in the public sector irrespective of the merits or demerits, but also to use Government influence all the time to lower the average rate of wage increases right across the board, in the private sector no less than the public. Secondly—this is just as important—as soon as the Industrial Relations Bill has finally passed through Parliament I feel there must be détente, a perceptible shift towards a real attempt at greater mutual understanding between Government and the T.U.C. I do not take too pessimistic a view of the chances of this happening, and one reason is that whatever differences there are in this House or outside about policy, there is no Minister in the Government who rightly carries greater respect and popularity than Mr. Robert Carr, the Secretary of State for Employment.
When I speak of the elements of a new incomes policy I am thinking in particular of three things: first of all, a recognition of the special position of those groups of wage earners or professional workers who have fallen behind the big battalions; secondly, a recognition that the key to the situation lies, as I am sure it does, in some guarantee that an increase in national wealth will always be reflected in some increase in real wages. I do not meet a very large number of those on the trade union side concerned with wage negotiations, but whenever I do, and whenever we talk, it is always this issue of real wages which is understandably uppermost in their minds, and this seems to me the clue to any new policy we might hope would emerge. Thirdly, I believe we must have some permanent machinery for prices and incomes policy. I have never concealed my view that I regretted the rapid demise of the Prices and Incomes Board under the present Government. I am sure that before long we shall need to replace it with something similar.
I know that there are those who regard any attempt at an incomes policy as
922
inconsistent with the desire to achieve a more thrusting and competitive economy. I think they are wrong, for this reason: it seems to me quite obvious—and if it was not obvious before, surely it is obvious now—that the labour market does not behave like the textbook model of perfect competition. In fact it has never done so. The labour market observed by that often maligned character Adam Smith in the 18th century—I have read The Wealth of Nations; and a very interesting book it is—was not the abstraction created in the minds of later writers. It was one, as Adam Smith himself realised, in which power was already of paramount importance: the power of the employer with his reserves of capital to fall back upon in bargaining with individual workers, which they could not meet on equal terms unless they developed their own countervailing power through collective action and the formation of trade unions.
What we have learned surely, and learned painfully, during the past ten years is that it is not the employers, on the whole, who have suffered most through the development of this countervailing power of the trade unions. The real sufferers have been those in our society who have no ready means of adding to their incomes quickly, or any leaf hedge against inflation, in response to the combined power which the great corporations and trade unions jointly possess to raise wages and prices. It is for those reasons that I feel most deeply that there is absolutely no alternative but to go back to this path of developing policies on the lines that a number of noble Lords on both sides of the House have mentioned this afternoon.
This is extremely difficult, but it is essential. I believe it is often those policies with regard to which no Government can succeed absolutely that are none the less most important to the nation. May I say that in advocating that this is the line we should take, I am trying to think this afternoon not of the interest of any one section of the community but of the public interest. I am also quite sure that if we can make even partial success along this road of an incomes policy it is the whole of our society, including organised labour, who will in fact benefit a great deal.
5.20 p.m.
LORD THOR NEYCROFT: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for giving us the opportunity of having this debate, I think I should be meeting the wishes of your Lordships' House if I, too, were to pay tribute to the two remarkable maiden speeches: first, that of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who I thought approached the problem of an incomes policy in an original and extraordinarily interesting way (I should like to make some reference to it in a few moments) and, secondly, to my noble friend Lord Boyle. My noble friend Lord Boyle has always brought to public life quite remarkable qualities of intellect and character. Those of your Lordships who listened to that speech will realise the quality of debate which one can enjoy in any assembly of which he is a member. The intellectual capacity is matched by an attitude which I have always found extremely attractive, though no doubt it is sometimes regarded as a little naughty. It is an attitude which pays rather more attention to intellectual truth than Party dogma. It has earned him a few criticisms in life, but it has also earned him many friends in all Parties and in all walks of life. We wish him well. The other attractive feature is that he always assumes that one knows as much as he does. I find this extraordinarily comforting. I feel now that I really do have Adam Smith as a bedside book, and I feel that your Lordships are almost persuaded of that as well. I manage to embark on this difficult subject a little more happily than I would otherwise have done.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, painted the shadows in the economy. Of course there is no question but that those shadows are there. My noble friend Lord Boyle is quite right; nobody can deny them. There is the slackness in investment; the rising prices; the levels of unemployment. All these things are there. If we are to approach them and ask what we should do about them, I think it is not a bad thing to start off by saying that we have all contributed to those shadows at one time or another. Although it is a long time ago since I had any great influence in these affairs, I am sure I made plenty of mistakes. I do not think there is anybody
924
who has been in public life who has not done the wrong thing from time to time. The difference between Governments and business is that in business—if you look at the management of British industry—they do wrong things almost all the time; but then, the moment they find out it is wrong, they stop doing it and do something else. For some extraordinary reason, perhaps because we debate in public, it is remarkably difficult for Governments and political Parties to think through afresh what they ought to do, in order to assess the value of policies that they have pursued.
If one asks who put the shadows there, well, one can look back on the Budget. I thought it was rather a brave Budget. To be absolutely frank, it went a little further than I thought would be wise at that time. How wrong I was! It probably did not go far enough, or not far enough in the right direction. Though there may be reflationary benefits, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory said, and other benefits, they have not yet quite come through the economy. But it is not enough just to look at one Budget; one has to look at other things that have happened. May I say in the kindest spirit to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick —because I think he recognised in what he said that this is a national rather than a Party problem—that I would hope that he would try to think again whether all the things that were done by the previous Government were quite as right as he supposed. The years of overtaxation really have done quite a lot of harm. The spirit and policy of trying to have universal benefits, irrespective of need, is no doubt one of the factors which we may still be suffering from. When the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said that we must get back as soon as we can to free prescriptions I ask, without being controversial about these things, that we all of us try to think again and try and see what the effect of our acts have been, admitting that all of us from time to time have pursued policies which, while they may have had some merits, have also had some defects and may need new thought.
Not only are Governments concerned here, but also outsiders. We are dependent upon management and trade unions. No one would say that management in this country was perfect; no one would

925
say that the trade union movement, or its leadership, are perfect. We have spoken about wage demands, and the hope has been expressed that they may be decelerating a little. But there are plenty of factories in this country at the moment working about half time, or on a go-slow or a strike in favour of a 35 per cent. wage increase. Such wage increases are pitched at a level at which it is almost impossible to start discussions at all. One has to count not only the inflationary effect of settlements— when you get settlements— of around 10 per cent., but the general slowing up and inertia in British industry initiated by enormous wage demands. Then you have a slackness of work or a go-slow, or something of that kind, and factory after factory is faced with that kind of situation at this time.
What do we do? The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, says, "We get an agreed policy". If he and I had to agree a policy I like to think that we should probably get along quite well; but an agreed policy is a really difficult thing to achieve in this life, particularly on the subject to which he draws attention in this Motion. "material rewards". I hope no one will take my words as meaning more than I say. I am coming round rather to favour the approach of my noble friend Lord Boyle to an incomes policy; but let us recognise the problem. If anyone were to ask me what are the relative rights in the way of material rewards between a "pop" singer and a B.O.A.C. pilot—or me, if I wrote my memoir—I really would be very puzzled to give an answer. Frankly, I do not know, and I do not think that anybody else knows, either. Therefore, one is in a great initial difficulty when one is talking about organising some system of fair material rewards.
There is another form of agreement which he might be looking for; that is, agreement with the public. We all rather like agreement with the public—especially in the other House, because they are very dependent upon agreement with the public. But to judge from the current polls or the Press, or what is said by the trades unions, what would we get agreement on with the public at the moment? I doubt whether we should get agreement on going into Europe. We should probably get a broad measure of agreement that we should not do so at this moment, if the polls are right. What
926
agreement would we get about wages? To print as many banknotes as we can persuade the Government to print would be the most popular. I am doubtful whether it is the role of Governments always to be seeking agreement with the public. I believe it is the role of Governments to lead the public. It is inevitable that Governments are unpopular; it is part of our system. When the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, was saying how can one get agreement if one does this or that, he was quite right; you cannot get agreement about these things. But a Government of either Party, which just set about doing only those things on which they could get agreement with the public, would make a sorry business of governing this country at this particular moment in our history.
I believe that this Government have led. They have certainly taken some very hard decisions—Rolls-Royce, Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. They were horribly difficult decisions, but I believe they were right decisions. I am not in the least impressed with stories about order books. Anybody who knows anything about business knows that you can collect an order book. The test is whether you can collect an order book which, at the end of the day, can be related in any sense to profits, not because profits are great things in themselves, but because they are the only measurement we yet know for deciding whether what you make is wanted, or whether you are making it as efficiently as anybody else. There is no other method known. So I think that in those cases the Government were right in the very harsh decisions that they made. But they were very hard decisions for the men engaged in those businesses, and I think that the management and those who, in the case of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, organised that particular structure have a certain amount of blame upon their shoulders. Only at the last moment were the Government called in to pick up the bits.
I would say: Forget about seeking agreement and about having an inquest on the past and let us, if we can, face the complex of problems which involve—and I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, and the noble Lord, Lord Balogh—the question of Europe. It is rather like Hamlet without the Prince if you entirely eliminate from the argument the biggest economic

927
facts; that is, about Europe, about whether we should reflate, and about what, if anything, can be done about an incomes policy. Europe is central, but I am not going to make a speech about it because that would be inappropriate to-day. However, it is plain that we are reaching the moment of truth on Europe. It is my hope that the negotiators have managed to eliminate the butter and fish, to which at one moment it looked as if the argument would be reduced. We are going to have to face the issue of principle as to whether it is in our interest to go in or to stay out. The noble Lord, Lord Boyle, is right in saying that the timing is difficult. I make no claim now, but at one time I knew a great deal about that problem. I had worked very hard on it; I had read and re-read the Treaty of Rome. I had argued it in Delhi, in Peshawar, in Canada and in many other places, and I could answer cross-examination on it. But, at the end of the day, I should never have been able to demonstrate with figures whether we ought to go in or to stay out.
It is not a judgment about figures; it is a judgment about faith. It is a judgment about an attitude of mind, and my guess is that at the end of the summer those who now believe we should go in will still believe that we should go in, while most of those who now think we should stay out will still think that we should stay out. Though I am prepared to play even my modest part in trying to explain almost inexplicable complexities, I do not think you can really use statistics to argue about matters of that character. Like the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, I therefore regret the delay which we have to face. It is utterly wrong but, like many utterly wrong things, it is politically inevitable. We have to pretend somehow or other, with a month or two of stomping up and down the country, in which, I am afraid, an awful lot of nonsense will be talked and an awful lot of positions will be taken up which, afterwards, people will wish that they had not taken up. But I recognise that we have to do it.
But the longer this delay goes on, the longer the investment decisions are going to be delayed; and if this debate is about anything it is about investment decisions. Many noble Lords have said
928
that what is required is an investment-led reflation, but one does not get an investment-led reflation unless there is confidence, unless businesses know what it is that they are going to face and which markets they are going into. That is the European scene, and I hope that we shall have a reasonably successful summer on it. If we got into a strong Europe, and it really was outward-looking and a great centre for culture and investment in the rest of the world, that would be a very great thing indeed. It is possible that if we go in we may not get that. But if we stay out we shall certainly never get it at all.
What do we do in the meantime? There is of course the question of wage inflation, and on that I want to make only one point. I want to say it slowly, or to say it twice in order to emphasise it. If wages go up and prices are held, that will mean large-scale unemployment. I want to say that as clearly as I possibly can. If wages go up and we try to hold prices down, the only effect will be to throw people out of work because businesses will no longer be able to afford to pay their wages. That elementary but not very revolutionary economic thought is not very fully understood. and it needs to be said. As the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, wrote in an article in to-day's Financial Times, even if you held cost inflation now and cut off the sources of it, it would still be running through in rising costs for many months ahead. That means that we are going to go on seeing these price increases, which in some degree are quite inevitable if we are going to keep at work the men whom many of us employ. That ought to be understood.
That brings me to what I want to say in conclusion. We must use every effort that we can to control this wage-pushed inflation. By "every effort that we can", I do not mean that I see an easy solution with a statutory incomes policy or anything of that kind. But I would ask, as I have asked earlier in your Lordships' House, that nobody in Government commits himself irrevocably against any of the possible measures into which the Government might be forced. There is no perfect answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, produced one, which was no doubt an imperfect answer, but it may be that we shall have to accept an

929
imperfect answer rather than have no answer at all. The Government may be driven into some method of holding wages. For example, the next round is already in the "hopper", so to speak. Before long, the dustmen will be coming along demanding another round. The local councils may be even more willing to settle than last time, and, if necessary, I think we have to be prepared to say—and to say it early—that they will not be rate supported; that we are not prepared to give rate grants from the central Exchequer to support wage inflation of that kind.
We have to use monetary controls. We have to use every method that is open to us—and the Government have used plenty of them already. If necessary, we may have to tax employers—that is one of the suggestions that has been put forward—who agree to inflationary wage settlements. I am an employer and I do not say that I welcome or advocate that course. All I say to the Government is: For Heaven's sake do not rule out any method that may be necessary really to control wage settlements below those under which we have recently been suffering. I say that with emphasis, because I share the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, that it would be very much in the country's interest if a modest reflation could be got going before we have to jump this fence into the Common Market.
I say this from many points of view—some economic, some political. To try to take a great step forward in the economy with all the indicators set rather hard against you, with public opinion at all levels (whether it is management or the trade unions) suffering under a lethargic economy, with managers forced into more and more redundancies as the summer goes ahead, is going to be a damned awkward way of presenting this particular horse at this particular fence. I say, therefore, if it is possible, screw down your wage increases by any means available. As to reflation, I appreciate what Lord Aberdare said. I would have said the same in his position—" This is the time of the year when one is looking at a general review, and if action is necessary action will be taken ", et cetera, et cetera. That is quite the right answer; I do not ask for it to be amended in any
930
way by the Lord Chancellor or by anybody else. We have all said it, I think, at one time or another. But I hope that, as a result of that thought, the noble Lord will bear in mind that we are on the verge of one of the biggest economic and political moves in history.
5.41 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, upon her maiden speech. I have had the pleasure of hearing her many times from the Press benches at Liberal Party Conferences, and I have always admired the combination of academic wisdom and the skill of an old campaigner that she brings to politics. I am quite sure that we have acquired not merely a fluent but a formidable debater, and we are delighted to have done so. I do not know what I could say which would not be presumptuous about the maiden speech of such a distinguished Parliamentarian as Lord Boyle of Handsworth. I would simply say that I hope that from time to time he can leave the turbulence of university politics to come and add his singular mixture of sweetness and light to our debates in this Chamber.
My Lords, this is a very happy day. This is the day they brought the good news from Luxembourg to London. I had hoped to see a row of radiant faces behind the Dispatch Box, but noble Lords give the appearance that this is just another black day in the life of the Government. It is not. I share in their happiness. I may say that if Government hospitality was as prodigal at Westminster as it quite appropriately has been at Luxembourg, I would gladly raise a glass of champagne and toast Mr. Rippon, coupling with his the name of M. Pompidou. So, on a day like this, I find it rather hard to look back in anger. The past twelve months of governmental failure, of government by an out-of-date ideology and a curious kind of stern and stale rhetoric, seem to be to-day, I think of only passing importance. What matters more is the future: whether Britain is going to take full advantage of the European opportunity or whether Britain is going to be the lame duck of a wider Europe.
I have always held that there has been a great inconsistency in recent Tory philosophy. On the one side, there has

931
been an admirable and fervent desire to join the European Economic Community; and, on the other, a desire to revert to some of the rather harsh Tory principles of the pre-war period, which were years of economic and social failure, and of national humiliation. These two attitudes seem to me to be wholly incompatible. The Tory Party has given the impression over recent years—fortunately more by words than by deeds—that it is a Party which believes in minimum social security, of people being encouraged, or obliged, to stand on their own feet by individual effort, rather than by joining in a universal and collective system of social security.
This, my Lords, is remote from the European idea. Of course, in the field of European social security there are wide variations. Each nation has its own priorities and its own emphases. There is nothing perhaps so comprehensive and easily accessible in the whole of Europe as the British National Health Service; but when we come to pensions and family allowances we are, I think, outmatched. Yet these are vital to the protection of the average family and the average pensioner in a system which is dependent on value added tax and more realistic food prices than we are used to in this country. It is of course extremely difficult to compare the value of social services in different countries, to estimate exactly what the social wage is, and I have never been satisfied with those comparisons which are made by my pro-Common Market friends and which put us rather low in the table. Probably taking one thing with another, including our comparative generosity to university students, we come out quite creditably. An important thing is that we do not now fall behind, that we now abandon for all time those ideas beloved by the Right Wing of the Tory Party which would reduce social security to the succour of the very poor. That is not the European way; it is not compatible with the European system; and it is certainly not compatible with the European aspiration of the harmonisation of social security.
So the sad fact of to-day, as several noble Lords have said, is that after 12 months of Tory policies in Britain people are approaching the European opportunity with greater and greater trepida-
932
tion. They are asking: can we really take the additional risk of entering Europe under a Government which stands helpless before inflation? A Government which believes that a negotiated or legislated incomes policy is impossible or undesirable? A Government which seems to tackle the problems of failing industries, on which the living of thousands of families depend, with a certain moral repugnance? And a Government which seems to enjoy its stultifying cold war with the unions and which has adopted (although not of course in this Chamber) a style of governing with minimal dependence on persuasion? I sometimes think that if this Government were to form a lifeboat crew they would blame the shipwrecked mariners for the storm in which they were caught. This Government seem sometimes to be in the grip of their own barren ideology.
In most countries, even in the Communist ones to-day, ideology is dead because to-day's problems can be met only by a flexible pragmatism. It took my own Party a decade of bitter dispute to come to terms with that hard fact. The Conservatives, with their impressive tradition of adaptations, were quicker to learn. Then a few years ago, out of power, and facing, as all Parties in all parts of the world face to-day, a disillusionment in their simple rank and file, they slipped back. They returned some way to the old-time religion and it was codified in the synod of Selsdon at the beginning of 1970. All that has been happening in the Government during the past year was inscribed on the Selsdon Tablets: the lightening of the taxation of the highest earners in the land while leaving the poorer-paid workers no better off; little meannesses about school milk, school dinners, museum charges; the abolition of such useful instruments as the Prices and Incomes Board and the Consumer Council.
But far more important than the Government's misdeeds are the things they have not done because ideology forbids. They seem to believe that it would be a sin against the Holy Ghost to intervene in prices and incomes except to be stern towards the lower-paid workers in the public service, and to make price arrangements in the steel industry. They seems to stand helpless before the inflation which they blame wholly on the rapacity

933
of the trade unions, particularly in the private sector. They have no policy for conspicuous growth because they fear to add to the inflation which they refuse to control. They will confront the unions on the ideological front of the Industrial Relations Bill but not on the practical front of prices and incomes. Government policies arc not in fact working, and never looked like working.
A year ago the Government believed that if they reduced taxes, if they stood up to the unions, if they put responsibility on the private citizen, somehow the energies of the nation would be released and we should enter a new to-morrow. Of course, the Prime Minister warned us not to expect a miracle overnight—and never did he speak a truer word. But if anyone had then predicted that after one year in power the pound would have fallen so sharply in internal value, that we should have 800,000 unemployed, that investment would be stagnant, that business confidence would be at an all-time low, the Government themselves would have been totally incredulous. Yet the prediction could have been made.
The Tory diagnosis of what people wanted of their Government, of what had to be done, was outdated and shallow; for by 1970 when the Government came to power, the idea that inflation could be kept at bay if demand was correct was no longer tenable. Most of the conventional wisdom about the effects of Governmental action on the economy was no longer true, or was highly suspect. It was never put better than by Raymond Fletcher, M.P., in an article in The Times. This was devoted to dissolving Labour myths; it is time that some good Conservative did the same for the Tory myths. But what Mr. Fletcher had to say had some general application. He said:
"Ministerial power is exercised to-day in a strange environment. No longer can a Chancellor correctly anticipate the result x from fiscal measure A. People spend more when according to past habits they should be spending less. That intangible thing called confidence comes and goes like spring showers. Human behaviour in fact seems to have gone random and this, while not making governmental planning impossible, makes it damnably difficult."
To-day the random effects are even more marked. Wages increase fantastically, but not demand. Prices go up swiftly, but provide no encouragement to invest. People who have always spent wildly
934
when prices are rising are causing embarrassment by their propensity to save. Unemployment, which used to be a check on wage demands, has no apparent effect either on the claims made or on the claims granted. The problems for a Chancellor to-day are great, and nobody will envy Mr. Barber his task. But he and his colleagues are handicapped by the naïve views they formed in Opposition. There was always a great hole in their policy. They had no macro-economic policy, no plan for induced growth, only a theory that if taxes were low and incentives were high, it was one of those nice things that would happen.
They need a plan for growth now, and not just because they are standing low in the opinion polls. We are all sceptical about the implications of opinion poll results to-day in electoral terms. But I cannot refrain from saying that the local government and recent by-election results were very good predictors of the latest opinion polls. But that is not the reason I would urge the Government to develop a strategy for growth to-day. If the Government were incurring electoral unpopularity because they were doing the right and hard things, I should not encourage them to change. But not only does the nation want a new policy; the economy needs it and demands it. It is time now that the Government reassured the nation that they have, first, a social plan to cushion the poor and weak against the impact of the Common Market, and that they have a growth plan to take advantage of the opportunities. Because, after all, the economic object of going into Europe is to put our economy on a sounder basis and to enable it to grow faster. How is it to be done? When is it to be done? We cannot leave it, as several noble Lords have pointed out, until January, 1973. Surely we must go into Europe on a rolling start, on a wave of developing growth. The Government have begun sadly. But now, with Europe ahead, they have the chance of a new beginning. With a European future they can bury the Selsdon tablets; they can plan in a new and encouraging context and put 1971 behind them as their annus horrendus.
5.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords. although I cannot follow the last speaker. I have found this a most interesting and

935
exciting debate. I avoid the word "stimulating" because it has its depressing aspects. There have been two outstanding maiden speeches and we have had other remarkable speeches from both sides of the House, including the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, whose example I do not propose to follow since I intend to take advantage of the absence of Lord Shinwell and to speak with copious notes.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has found the right formula for his Motion, although I do not agree with it. It scatters concepts like confetti. Had it originated on this side of the House and had he been here, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, would have called it a "mish-mash". To avoid plagiarism, I shall describe it as a bran-tub. It is well contrived with a little bit of what you fancy in it for everybody—and. indeed. they have taken advantage of it. In fact, the wording looks remarkably like an Election address with a call for the Government
" to seek a positive and agreed national policy ",
echoing Mr. Wilson's cry for a General Election.
The Motion calls for
" a policy based on full employment, an expanding economy and maximum social justice ",
and it is introduced by a noble Lord who was a member of the former Administration, under which unemployment rose by over 60 per cent. while the economy remained stagnant, and which extorted a higher percentage of the gross national product in taxation than ever before in British history. The concepts mixed together in the bran-tub comprise two distinct categories: the growth of real resources and the allocation of those resources. "The unfairness of material rewards as between one section of the community and another" and "a national policy based on maximum social justice" may be desirable subjects for debate; but they have no bearing upon the more urgent problems inherited by this Government, of inflation, of rising unemployment, of stagnation of the economy and of inadequate industrial investment. There is a connection between growth and resource allocation in that the achievement of real growth will result in a general rise in the standard of living.
936
But as the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said, in a free society there will always be grounds for arguing that material rewards are unfairly distributed. What are required to "maximise social justice" are more equal opportunities to earn better rewards.
But none of this is strictly relevant to the urgent problems of inflation and lack of growth which are at the heart of this Motion and about which I imagine the noble Lord must be mainly concerned to seek the views of the House.
My Lords, this is a very important debate, because inflation is posing a grave problem not only for the Government but for all the people. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, raised the question of whether to sacrifice the policy of full employment to fight inflation. I am not sure what answer noble Lords opposite would give to this question were they in power; but I suspect that they would compromise, with fatal results. I am clear in my mind what course the present Government should pursue. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed the way in his speech in answer to Lord Beswick's previous Motion in November last year.: I follow him in believing that inflation, if allowed to continue unchecked, will imperil the free and effective working of the kind of mixed economy, and the kind of free democracy and democratic society, to which we belong; and for which most of us have risked our lives at one time or another.
My Lords, since that debate we have seen the crash of Rolls-Royce, which can be attributed to the same cause as that which led to the overthrow of the great industrial concern of Hugo Stinnes in Germany in the 'twenties. The reason is that the pace of inflation outstripped the growth of their financial resources. No one can doubt that Rolls-Royce would still be viable in its old form if wages, costs and prices had remained constant. To save the concern in the national interest a Conservative Government have found themselves obliged to adopt a basically Marxist economic theory, and take over the ownership of the means of production, and to finance those means from public funds. The effects of inflation upon company liquidity in the 'sixties can be clearly seen on page VI of the current Economic Trends. Small wonder that the Government, who must

937
have these considerations in mind, are reluctant to pursue reflationary policies. whether directed towards full employment or faster growth!
Noble Lords opposite are not alone in disliking unemployment or in being shocked at the thought of men and women on the dole. Nor is it enough to have comprehensive social services to cushion the effects of unemployment and to minimise hardship. The unemployed must be provided with the jobs which will not be forthcoming unless we contain inflation. The alternative is to accept a totalitarian system, as did Italy and Germany in similar circumstances 40 to 50 years ago, when unemployment accompanied inflation following the First World War. If any noble Lord doubts that the two evils are still closely interrelated he should consider the pattern of the last two inflationary periods; and, with all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, and much as I admire and respect Mr. Maudling, there was no apple and no bathwater at Aylesbury.
In 1964–1967 prices and earnings rose by about 17 per cent. and unemployment by over 60 per cent., accentuated no doubt by the draconian measures taken by the Labour Government to postpone devaluation. In the latest period, from 1969 to date, prices and earnings have risen by about 20 per cent. and unemployment by nearly 50 per cent., and will rise still further if inflation continues. The percentage rate of inflation approximates to the difference between the percentage rise of average earnings of all employees and the percentage increase of the real gross domestic product over any specified period. So long as earnings go up by as much as 10 per cent. per annum and growth remains constant at from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent.—and with due deference to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, I see no figure to suggest that the situation will be better than that—inflation must continue at the rate of about 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. per annum.
My Lords, the problem which successive Governments have had to face, and have failed to solve, is how to bridge the gap between the cost of living and of production and the rate of growth—or, at least, how to reduce the gap to a tolerable and historical rate of inflation
938
of just under 2 per cent. per annum. There are, broadly, two schools of thought about the means to these ends, comprising the devotees of the prices and incomes policy and the disciples of faster growth. It is fair comment that the difference of opinion is beginning to harden along Party lines, with noble Lords opposite advocating an incomes policy against which Ministers have as yet set their faces; and my noble friends looking to the Common Market to provide them with a higher rate of growth. I regret to learn from Lord Balogh's apologia for the Election that he does not think much of our chances of improving growth when in the Common Market. I do not agree with him, but I do not think that the question is really relevant to to-day's debate since in my opinion we have to stand on our own feet.
Neither Party has succeeded, when in power, in bringing about faster growth as a result of their own policies. Investment remained static under the last Administration; it has fallen slightly under this Government and is forecast to fall still further, although I think Lord Aberdare's remarks revealed some difference of opinion between the Treasury and the C.B.I. about that prospect. There is no question of this situation being due to lack of confidence, because the figures show that the private sector is expanding by an amount equivalent to its surplus liquidity each year on new fixed capital formation. The alarming fact is that company sector liquidity has fallen by about 50 per cent., or, at current prices,£2,000 million, since 1960. This is the "depressing picture" to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred and to which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, made reference. In the light of these figures it is not surprising that our capital goods industries, and particularly our machine tool industry, are in the doldrums and pessimistic about future prospects. Yet, my Lords, these are the industries upon which we rely for growth, and which should be working to capacity.
Additional investment is needed quickly, yet industry is in no position to provide further funds from its own resources. Nor are higher consumption and higher prices satisfactory solutions to the problems. The extra cash flow will take too long to work its way

939
through to investment. It is dangerous to reflate before inflation has been brought under control and until investment results in more advanced and more profitable plant and equipment. And there could be harmful effects upon the balance of payments.
To cut this Gordian knot, and to provide industry with fresh incentive and resources to depreciate and replace obsolescent plant more rapidly, there is a strong case for adding to the provisions made by the Chancellor in his Budget. Grants to industry for research and development could also be increased. As the problem seems to be one of timing, this method would bring at least two advantages. There would be a time-lag, perhaps as much as a year, before the cash is spent by the wage-earner in consumption. And it would take anything up to two years before the full effects of new fixed capital formation were felt in increased production, by which time the demand should be there or able to be released to meet it—and at a time which my noble friends might look upon as appropriate for added growth and increased prosperity.
To achieve these aims while keeping prices down and to go some way to restoring company liquidity to the 1960 level, it seems a reasonable compromise that half the required amount, about £1,000 million, should be provided by direct contribution from the Treasury to be spread over two years. The reductions in company taxation already made this year, including investment allowances but less investment grants and the new national insurance contributions, amount to just under £400 million, of which £300 million will be credited in the current year. This could be increased by a further £600 million, £200 million this year and £400 million in 1972–73. Treasury contributions to the private sector would then total just under £1,000 million, half in this year and half in next.
It may be that Ministers will decide that social justice, or political expediency, demand the reflation of the economy by stimulating consumption. If this option is under review, I hope that Ministers will exercise restraint. With all due deference to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, it was a relief to learn from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that no pre-
940
cipitate action will be taken. However, I accept that industry will look for an assurance that there will be market outlets for the increased investment. While the Budget changes in taxation are likely to add about £450 million to consumption this year, and £500 million in a full year, the effect upon retained profits can be only marginal. It may take anything from five to ten years before company liquidity is restored to a level which could be considered to be satisfactory. For these reasons, there is something to be said for adding about £150 million to consumption in the current year, and for Ministers making some commitment to the public and to industry about increased consumption over the next two or three years, along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, as conditions permit and if the pace of inflation abates.
Turning briefly to prices and incomes, I part company with my noble friends in believing that cost-push inflation cannot be contained in the private sector without Government intervention. There is some evidence that prices have risen rather faster than wages over the past year, and good grounds for believing that they must rise still further. Because of this, it seems to me desirable and feasible that the intervention should bear upon prices, in the interests of the consumer, rather than upon incomes, where I believe control to be more in line with the philosophy of noble Lords opposite. And it seems to me that an incomes policy places rather more responsibility upon Ministers and a prices policy upon management, where to my mind this responsibility properly belongs.
I should like to see a strong Consumer Board, incorporating the Monopolies Commission, and with a reviewing function over the price of essential and semi-essential goods. The Minister would have powers to limit price increases, but would only exercise them to remedy proved cases of abuse. But to pursue these ideas would take up an unreasonable amount of your Lordships' time, of which I have already been greedy.
Finally, I congratulate the Government on the success of their policy of restraint in the public sector, which is in marked contrast to the handling of expenditure in that sector by their predecessors. I oppose the Motion because of the record

941
of noble Lords opposite in that respect, and because I believe that it betrays the muddled thinking on economic problems which characterised their tenure of office. My noble friends and their colleagues in another place have taken, and will continue to take, the measures appropriate to the hour. If they are concerned about what has been described as "that mysterious. independent variable of political calculation, public opinion," I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, and remind them of the words of a great statesman:
" More important than winning the election is governing the nation. That is the test of a political Party—the acid, final test"
6.13 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I shall be brief, but I feel that my intervention ought to extend some of the points made. I must thank my noble friend Lord Beswick for introducing this debate and for the terms of his Motion. in spite of what the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, had to say about mash-tub. This is what politics are all about. Of the terms of the Motion, I think the most important one is maximum social justice. I believe that the mechanics of politics and economics can find their justification only in maximum social justice, which of course has not been particularly manifest for some time. I should also like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seears, not just conventionally but because I think it was a remarkable maiden speech and I agree with so much of what she said. I was naturally delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, in his new incarnation. I have followed him with so much admiration in his many incarnations that to see him re-emerging from his university into his Parliamentary reincarnation was for me an experience.
The terms of the debate today are fundamental, including everything we ought to be considering in present-day politics. It is these fundamentals that brought me to these Benches. The Labour Party, to which I adhere and which I follow, not too slavishly, as some noble Lords may have noticed, stands for that social justice in which I believe. It is part of the habit of this House, and something which is respected by those who come from the outside world, that so many noble Lords speak not from
942
the book but from living experience. I do not want to be prosy or to be recriminatory, but I should like to put a few doubts before your Lordships.
I was there on Red Clydeside in 1924, and it was Red because of the manifest social injustice, because of the unemployment, because of the closing of shipyards like Beardmore's, which had built battleships and had to go over to building metal houses. It was a period when, as usual, Scotland was Vulcan's forge in time of war and then when the war had gone, was allowed to die. In 1924, we had in Scotland all the manifestations that other people were to find in exaggerated form in 1929 and after. I was (I hate to remind your Lordships) at Invergordon during the mutiny. It is one of those things which are now conveniently forgotten, but the mutiny followed the gross injustices of the policies of the Government of that day. I went through the 1930s wrestling, through Committees, against malnutrition, and trying to see that the milk which was then being poured into the gutters was put instead into the stomachs of children. School milk for children came out of our campaign and it was the noble Lord, Lord Woolton in the War-time (not the Conservative) Government, who implemented the first school milk scheme. I was on the Jarrow Crusade, when a town marched to demand work.
My Lords, it is happening again. The ghosts of everything I am talking about are rising from the grave: the manifest abuses of the system, the demonstrations of resentment against' the system, against what is intolerable because it is no longer excusable. In Scotland last week-end the newspapers were running the headline, "The Clyde Crusade". It is the Jarrow Crusade again. They are marching; and the clergy with them. This is a great distress to me, because I am not a doctrinaire. I believe in progress, and one of the compensations of a progressive, as one gets older, is to realise from long experience that progress means taking two steps forward and one step back. We progressives believe strongly in going ahead, but then we have to retreat to "practical politics". But the present situation is not two steps forward and one back—it is two steps forward and three steps back. We are going back in time. The time machine has skidded,

943
and we are talking again in terms of the 1930s and 1920s. This, to me, is not only contemplating the present situation in terms of the kind of thing which my noble friend Lord Balogh or Lady Seear, or any other noble Member of this House, can spell out to me in economic terms. The economics of every situation are relative only in terms of inhumanity of man to man—and I do not use that phrase piously: it is in fact demonstrated in everything that is happening to-day. I have gone back in attitude, and this is more serious than simply skidding in the statistics of the situation. This, to me, is something which emphatically has to be redeemed.
I am, as your Lordships will realise, concerned about the future. I want to take up, and to support, one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned: and, indeed, I have some support from the noble Earl, Lord Dudley. At this time, whatever we have in terms of 800,000 unemployed, at least let us in this situation take care that people are being retrained for the kind of jobs which we hope we are going to create for them in the future. They will have to be forward looking jobs, not just retreating into our past. As the noble Earl, Lord Dudley, said, one of the serious things at the moment is that the whole machine tool industry, on which we are going to depend for any future prosperity, is falling off.
The other matter that I want to emphasise—it is a bad sign, because it has been a bad sign in every other situation in the last forty years—is the effect on the employment of graduates. I do not say that as one coming from academic life, but rather belatedly into and out of academic life. The fact is that in the past, as now, the victims of a situation of this kind are the people whom we have encouraged to go on to take high qualifications and whom we are now sacking. When I was in Scotland this week-end, the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, was on television appealing to his friends to do far more to help Scotland—which has this over 50 per cent. increase in unemployment—to get going in terms of research and development; in fact, to employ the redundant graduates. I think the experience of every university this year is that the people
944
who are coming out of this year's science and engineering courses are not being employed. This, to me, is one of the most serious indicators of the whole business. The fact is that we are, as it were, eating the seedcorn of our future.
6.24 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I want to begin by saying what remarkable maiden speeches we have heard to-day. I con gratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. and the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, on their excellent contributions to this debate. I hope that we shall often hear from them again in the future.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, about the seriousness of the present situation. I have not the advantage of knowing the Clyde, but in the 'twenties I used to go quite often to South Wales and I saw scenes there which I shall never forget. The unemployment and the deplorable desolation of the villages was quite appalling to travel through; and there was so much hardship. I believe that there is less physical hardship now, but the social and personal hardship of not being employed is very great, and the waste of resources to this country is appalling. As we have to pay for these people anyhow, it would be much better if we could find some means of using their qualities.
It seems to me, my Lords, that we want to take a new look at the situation in the light of yesterday's news, because I personally think that we probably are going to succeed in entering Europe, and that in about a year and a half there will begin to be much greater opportunities for an expansion for our trade and economy, provided—and I underline the word "provided"—we are in a position to take advantage of them. If we are not in a position to take advantage of them, presumably we shall not derive much advantage. Therefore we have to look at the situation in a completely new light. We have to look at our policies globally from now on and see how we are going to adapt them to face this new situation. I believe that there is a vast common interest on both sides of industry, and between the Government and the people, in seeing that we make the best of what is now going to happen.

945
Your Lordships may ask: "Where do we start?". Well, my Lords, I have a most unpopular thing to say. I think the first thing that we should do is to cut out the more abrasive side of our politics. Personally, I hope never to hear any more about the crisis in which the Conservatives "landed" Labour in 1964, or about the "handsome surplus" which Labour left to the Conservatives in 1970. I think that we should all start to look forward.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. may I interrupt the noble Lord'? I hope he will take a balanced view and also suggest that the present Government should not talk about the inflationary prices that they have inherited: or perhaps the noble Lord only takes one side in politics.
LORD HANKEY: I could not agree more with the noble Lord. I should like our politicians and statesmen to look forward and to see what can be done together. Personally, I think it is not of great advantage that the B.B.C. should take the faces off our national leaders, one by one. I am fed up with the faceless individuals who criticise them on television. I do not think we derive great advantage from attempts to impugn the motives of our national leaders on either side. I say this with all humility from the Cross-Benches, because I must say that I am often amused to hear the quips and jokes from both sides of the House and in other places. However, I think that this should be carried on in future in a more moderate way, because there are bigger fish to fry.
Looking at the situation squarely, what we need is more investment. We must have it. The United Kingdom (I speak without the book) comes about sixteenth of all the nations of O.E.C.D. in the percentage of gross national product devoted to real investment. We cannot let this continue. We are slowly running down, and we are not likely to keep our place in world trade as we should unless we can improve that showing. There are, however, some encouraging features. Recently savings have started to look up. It is a mystery to anybody why this is so, but the fact is that it is happening, and although the sums are not so vast it ought to be possible for this to be a starting point for channelling more money into real investment. The loss of the new
946
Ford investment in this country is really extremely sad, because we are short of capital for this purpose here and we can do with foreign capital to help us out. I believe that about 10 per cent. of our real investment is with foreign capital, and in my opinion we cannot afford to lose that. I am sure that Ford have good reasons, and I personally should be very discouraged if I were directing Ford's development in their various factories in this country. That is another thing that we must put right.
I have referred to the growth of savings. I recall also that there is a new Green Paper that has been issued by the Bank of England called Competition and Credit, which indicates that there is going to be greatly increased competition in the credit-giving world. The important thing is: will this competition lead to more real investment? I am suggesting to the Government that they cannot safely just leave it to the banks to channel these increased investments anywhere that they please. The Government must somehow see that we get a real increase of industrial investment out of this change of credit policy. It is essential to marry these two items of Government policy. This is one of the points I had in mind in saying that we need to take a global look at policies from now on. The Government really must somehow get the banks and the City to solve this problem in such a way that we get an improved construction of factories, new machines in existing factories and improved processes generally.
I agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said: that we ought not at this moment to expand demand generally. I am especially rather alarmed when I read occasional statements in the newspapers that the Government are looking forward to some expansion of consumption. I do not believe that we want this. Consumption always leads to greater imports, and as our exports are none too strong at the moment, we cannot afford this at the present stage of the trade cycle. What we need is a reflation which is led by investment, and I seriously suggest that this should be one of the first priorities on the Government's list of policies to study, to see how this can be brought about. I do not know whether the investment grants or allowances, or the regional policies for development, could be improved in some way to bring

947
this about, but I am sure that an improvement in this respect is vital.
I mentioned exports. It is true that we seem to have done very well in trade, but if you look at the extremely favourable terms of trade which we now enjoy, and at the indications which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned in his speech, you will see that we are not on too good a footing. If you analyse our balance of payments you will also find that a good deal of the surplus we enjoy has been due to an inflow of both long-term and short-term capital, some of which is liable to go away when the terms of trade change and the balance of trade is slightly less favourable. Therefore I believe it is important that the Government should pay great attention to this. I have said that it is very important to get an improvement of real investment. Of course, manufacturers will install new factories and new machines only if they think that there will be an increase of demand and if they can sell the production, or some of it, at home. I hope that manufacturers, when they realise that we are going into Europe, will see that there is going to be an expansion at home but that they will look forward to European exports for their main drive, and that when they put up factories or change production facilities they will give preference to those parts of their industry which arc likely to be export-led. All this sounds rather obvious, but I think it needs to be said.
Of course, nobody is going to invest in a great number of new factories unless we have an improvement of industrial relations. I make no apology for reverting to this subject because it is absolutely fundamental to any improvement of our economic situation. Manufacturers cannot go on getting good export figures unless they can fulfil export date commitments; and this is an area where we have been particularly deficient. Personally, I have great hopes of the Industrial Relations Bill. I know—and I sympathise very much with this attitude—that others, particularly on the Opposition side, would have liked a voluntary system. I myself feel that we have had a very good try at a voluntary system but that it has not led to very good results, and that it is high time to try a new frame-
948
work such as is now being introduced. I believe that in the new circumstances it is important that that Bill should not be grossly misrepresented. It is quite easy to go round making cheap gibes, such as the suggestion of Mr. Clive Jenkins that a lot of people are going to find themselves in prison. They obviously are not.
We have had many enlightening debates in this House and I am suggesting that, in having an easier relationship in Party politics it would be very good if we could also try for a more objective approach towards this attempt to improve industrial relations. We must have better industrial relations and I believe that everybody in this House agrees on this. Therefore it would be a tremendous pity if some people were to go around, without discouragement from the Labour Front Benches, trying to make matters worse or misrepresenting them so that they become worse. If I may give a comparison, I do not think that the exclusion of certain fouls in football has led to reduced co-operation amongst football players. In fact, having played a good deal of hockey on the Continent, I would say that a fairly severe system of refereeing improves the game all round.
New investment requires new jobs. I should like to echo what has been said from all sides of the House, including the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, on training. I believe that training is absolutely fundamental to raising productivity. We have left it very much in arrears in this country. Perhaps I may mention the system in Sweden, which I found to be very interesting when I was Ambassador there. The Swedish trade unions used to encourage workers to get out of industries which had low productivity and could not afford to pay high wages because they were declining. Workers were encouraged to be retrained and to go into industries which had obviously a brighter future, with more capital and industrial support. I should like to see our trade unions taking a similar attitude, because I believe they could have tremendous influence. The difficulty is that sometimes they lose members to another trade union. I know how difficult this matter is, but looked at in the national interest I believe it is one on which the T.U.C. could help and probably could exercise great influence.

949
I should also like to see—and now I am going to use a horrid phrase which the Government will not like—a certain measure of manpower planning. I know that manpower forecasting is indulged in, but I believe it is still in rather a primitive state in this country. If I am being unfair to the relevant Department, I apologise in advance. When I went to Russia some years ago with a Parliamentary delegation, we found ourselves introduced to Rector Petrovsky, of Lomonosov University, and when my turn came to ask a question I asked what the link was between his university and the national economy. He said that it was a rather close one. It had to be because it was the university which paid the students' allowances, and he was obliged to go on paying allowances to students until, at the end of their degree course, he had found them jobs. So he was in very close touch with all the great corporations and businesses, he had a tremendous placement department and took enormous trouble to get the students into jobs immediately. He said that every year he had to tell the Gosplan—that is the department which looks after the Five-year Plan—of the quantity of people he expected to produce at the end of the five-year degree course. He had to supply them with the statistics of the number of geologists, musicians, lawyers and so on. They usually came back with suggested changes and said, "We shall want 5 per cent. more geographers and 6 per cent. less economists" and so on. He had somehow to adjust it.
We cannot go into that sort of thing now, but I believe there ought to be some connection established between the universities, the educational system and industrial requirements, or the requirements of the economy. If we produce a lot of people who have no jobs available for them, obviously they are extremely disappointed; they become extremely disgruntled and create trouble wherever they go. On the other hand, if we can produce the sort of people that industry is going to require, we do not have the same inflationary pull on their salaries and wages to try to get people into jobs that they were not trained to do, and we also decrease our training requirements. I suggest that this requires much more study.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will, I am sure, agree that
950
the measure that was put forward by the Labour Government with a view to retraining people who lose their jobs is a very good step in that direction. I agree wholeheartedly with what he is saying about retraining. He should not overlook the retraining activity that takes place. I agree that it requires developing but at least the arrangements exist.
LORD HANKEY: I thank the noble Lord. I am fully aware of that. I should like to see even more successful development of that kind of thing. Although I realise that the Government do not want to interfere in industrial questions, they have to face the fact that it is for them to assess the national interest and see that the national interest is served. No-one else can do that. We cannot be sure that the bankers will do it; industries cannot possibly assess the national interest, they only know about the interests of their own industries. The Government need to retain in their hands the tools and instruments for giving a push here and a push there. They require more than bank rate changes and an occasional instruction on hire-purchase arrangements. I am very sorry that they have abolished the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, the Consumer Council and the Prices and Incomes Board. No doubt those bodies could have been improved. I hope for the future that the Government will be prepared to give our economy a good push in the right direction; unless they are able to do that I am not sure that we shall go in the right direction, and I think it is essential that we should. It may go against the Government if they do not.
I am in favour of a very pragmatical policy; I am rather against "isms" by nature. If an "ism" works, let us have it; if it does not work, for goodness sake do not let us have it! If nationalisation will serve some part of our industry let us face the necessity. I do not like it, but let us face it. If it is necessary to let "lame ducks" sink, then let us do that. I do not like that much either, but certainly it is a lesson to people to manage their affairs properly. In the world in which we live we have to face the necessity for enabling and even forcing management to manage. Perhaps it is necessary to have some greater form of planning for the future. Businesses have to have plans; perhaps the Government

951
should have plans too. I would not exclude that absolutely, and I would certainly hope that it would be nothing like the Russians do, for I should not like that, either. Let us be pragmatical about the way we face the great problems in the future.
My Lords, I have gone on for too long, and I apologise. To conclude, we have a new situation. I believe that the Government should give a good push to real investment in order to take advantage of these new opportunities and that we should face these problems in the most pragmatical spirit possible.
6.45 p.m.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, it so happens that I am the last speaker, so far as the Back Benchers are concerned, to speak in your Lordships' House to-night. It is incumbent upon me to add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, for her wonderful speech and the way that she delivered it. It is something that many of us who were privileged to hear it will never forget. I should also like to refer to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Hands-worth. I can well remember the time when he came as a new Member into the other place. No one has watched his career more than the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He was privileged to serve with the noble and learned Lord within the then Ministry of Education and Science. The noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, built up respect for himself not only from the Government side but from the Opposition side within that Chamber. I am very pleased that the noble Lord has just returned to his place, for it enables me to pass on to him my congratulations for that maiden speech.
My noble friend Lord Beswick, in introducing this Motion for consideration by your Lordships, did a wonderful job. He covered the ground very well without trying to be too critical in regard to its presentation. He placed the facts before the House as he saw them, and he is to be congratulated for the way in which he did it. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, both took us back into the past, into the 1920s. I remember the 1920s very well. I was one of those little boys who had to go to the soup kitchens because of
952
what was happening at that time, and I remember the devastating effect that it had upon our people.
I want to move on into another sphere and that is the sphere of full employment. I am convinced in my own mind that the maintenance of full employment ought to be the first objective of any Government. It must be remembered that full employment does not just happen. It requires planning and vigilance on the part of any Government. We know from past experience how the Tory Party and Tory Governments paid lip service to full employment but attacked the policies pursued by the Labour Government to make it possible. Between the wars, in Europe and North America persistent mass unemployment became the normal condition of economic life. No one at that time, or even to-day if we had such a set of circumstances prevailing, could measure the misery and suffering created by unemployment.
When unemployment raises its ugly head it wastes our economic resources, and the means of production are not fully utilised. For example, houses that are needed could be built but are not built. Food is not grown and goods are not turned out in the quantities that people need. And I believe it is important to remember that few people escape the effects of unemployment. When a factory or a pit closes down, everyone is affected. It can spread from one industry to another. It naturally follows that if a man is unemployed he cannot afford to buy many of those things which are essential. Hence the effect upon those sectors which are producing essentials.
While it may be correct to say that the average of unemployment during the period from 1929 to 1935 was around 2 million, most workers of that time suffered during the inter-war period, with the result that those unfortunates who had to sign on the dole lost their faith in democracy and many of them drifted into other movements. Thank God I never drifted into any other movement than the Labour movement! I would have us remember that for 17 years out of the 20 inter-war years the Conservative Party had full power to tackle unemployment in this country—I repeat, for 17 years out of the 20. Its record, as I have ascertained in the course of research, is bad. On February 16, 1933

953
(and the noble and learned Lord the 'Lord Chancellor, who reminded me that he had spent over forty years in Parliament, may remember this), as reported in Hansard of that date, it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who said:
" Today we have to keep pegging away. Even though we may, from time to time, find that we are not getting on as fast as we should like, nevertheless, if we persist, we shall get there in time."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer at that period was Mr. Neville Chamberlain. The number of unemployed was in the region of 3 million.
I often wonder what would have happened to my own area of the North-East, and to Wales and Scotland, following the last war, if a Labour Government had not been returned to power, bearing in mind that it was that Government who were responsible for passing the Distribution of Industry Act 1945, which gave new hope to our people. The introduction of new industries into the areas, the building of Government factories, the securing of orders for these factories through Government Departments, and the steering of new private enterprises into these new development areas, were a great achievement. We were able to see young people on leaving school no longer dependent on finding work in the basic industries into which their fathers were forced because no other means were available. The great desire of parents from my area, from the North-East, was that their children should not have to encounter the difficult times that they themselves had had to encounter in being deprived of the right to work and to take their proper place in society.
It is now stated that we are entering the first stage of a second industrial revolution. This may be true. Mechanical labour is now replacing hand labour. These changing methods demand what? They demand a rethinking and a new approach. We cannot stand aside and see these new methods responsible for throwing men out of work without doing something to reaccommodate them in employment. It is not so much a question of having to fight to exist as of having the right to live. I would claim that unemployment, created not by economic factors, or boom or slump. but by the introduction and use of these machines and the use of new materials, involves the workers in having a justified claim
954
for protection and security. The first charge on industry should be the welfare of the worker who has brought about the progress of his industry.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has now returned to his seat. He has sat through the whole of this debate with only one slight break and I think he ought to be commended for the patience he has shown during the course of our deliberations. The noble Lord said that the Government did not intend to be pushed off the course they had decided to follow. He also said (if my note is correct) that unemployment was due to sluggishness in output. I could argue the point about sluggishness of output. But he also said something which backs up my argument in regard to the employment position; namely, that the Government have no intention of running away from the objective of full employment for the people of this country. I compliment him on saying what he did on this question.
I have said outside this House that if the worst came to the worst and whole villages were affected through the closing down of the main industry in their area the responsibility must rest with the Government in power to bring alternative employment to the area and not to allow disruption of village life to take place. My Lords, I do not want to go back and I do not want to see the situation I have already referred to happen again. But I must ask the Minister, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, this question. What is to be the boundary of the locality in regard to the Government's policy? We must remember that the development areas were sited over a particular region which was affected. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor knows this as well as I do. He was the first one to come into the picture (if my memory serves me aright) in regard to unemployment in my own area, and we had talks with him. And what would the Government regard as a high rate of unemployment before action was taken?
To listen to many speeches from the other side and in another place in support of the Government, it would appear that they have all the answers to solve our economic problems. They would automatically achieve some sort of price stability. As a matter of fact, nobody

955
in the country at this moment believes that he has a recipe at all to do this, except outright deflation to keep prices steady. We remember the years of Government from 1951 to 1964. In that period the cost of living rose by 51 per cent. From October, 1964, to October, 1965, the cost of living went up by 4 per cent. During their years of office, the Tory Government repeatedly increased indirect taxes in order to moderate what they regarded as inflationary forces. We know that they increased the tobacco tax in 1956; we know they raised it again in 1960; we know they raised it yet again in 1961. But they did not stop there, for they further taxed beer, spirits and petrol; and in 1962 they increased purchase tax on a whole range of items from 5½ per cent, to 10 per cent. in one fell swoop. This was Tory Government. Therefore, it ill becomes them to attack the Labour Government for what they were forced to do to get the economy right.
The noble Lord who preceded me did not want any of us to refer to the past in regard to this matter, following the legacy that they were left. If it is said that the timing was wrong, why did the Tory Government do nothing about it when they had full power? The one thing we must remember is that at that particular time the Tory Government had a backing in the other place of over a hundred majority. Whatever the charges laid against us by them, they cannot charge us with running away from our responsibilities in 1964, with a majority of three, and being in power for a period of only 17 months. We faced our responsibilities during those 17 months. We kept the nation informed, and it is well known that the economy of the country in 1964 had reached a critical stage. Because of what? Because of long years of stagnation which had resulted in a large trade deficit. Foreign confidence in our economy and our ability to recover had reached its lowest ebb. The economy was sick, our trade suffered and our share of the world export markets for manufactured goods had steadily declined. It is true that we were losing to our competitors. If we look back to 1950 we find that we were in a much better position, for at that time our share of world export markets was
956
one quarter. But 12 years later, in 1962, it had dropped to less than one-sixth. The gap between exports and imports widened. Production fell and unemployment rose. What made matters worse was that the unemployment was concentrated in certain areas of the North East.
Under successive Governments, areas like that of my own and areas of Scotland and Wales have had the classification attached to them of "distressed areas". They have also been called "development areas" and development districts ", and so on. Action on certain lines has been taken to offset the rise in unemployment. The Labour Government took a positive line in the regions against the background in which thousands of jobs were being lost, owing to the closure of collieries in mining areas and also to the rundown of the railways. Both industries were basic to employment and both had been large employers of labour. As a result of that action, new factories were built, new industrial estates were set up and special incentives were offered by way of development grants, and we in the North East were most grateful for that help. But still we were well above the national average in unemployment.
The new policies introduced by this Government will not bring in new industries in the same way as the policies of the Labour Government did, for if it is the intention of the present Government to save at least £100 million at the expense of regions like that of the North East, unemployment is bound to rise. The national figure has already been quoted. Eight hundred thousand people are unemployed at the present moment, and this could well reach one million by the end of the year. Not so long ago it was two men to one job; now we find that it is four men to one job. Now that the special inducement policies are to be withdrawn, how can we expect employers from the Midlands or even from the South to come into the North East area or into Scotland, or even into Wales? The Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks about a value added tax, which I do not favour: but if it is to be pursued and is to give accommodation to 10,000 civil servants—10,000 new jobs—within the term of office of the present Government, I would suggest to the Government that they do not rule out the North East region for such a development

957
I would ask the question, what has really happened to the new Inland Revenue centre? Where is it to be based? It was stated that the new centre would give employment to 3,000 workers. After all, when the Post Office was under a Government Ministry some of its employees travelled to the North-East. It was their desire that when we had to move part of the basic operations into a development area it should be in the North-East, and, in fact, in close proximity to the constituency that I then represented. Everything was more or less tabled for that to happen, but someone higher up took charge of the situation and it was moved into another industrial district. I could not complain about that, or even argue about it. It was transferred into Scotland. Scotland received that benefit and we lost it.
I have said that unemployment in the North East was well above the national average, but I was somewhat taken aback in my further researches when I found that for the month of April of this year the figures for unemployed persons were 72,300 in the northern region, and of that number 4,906 were people aged 18 years, many of them still looking for their first jobs. There were 7·2 per cent. unemployed males and 2·3 per cent. unemployed females, giving an average for the region of 5·5 per cent., a figure exceeded by Scotland with a rate of 7·5 per cent. This summer, in reply to a question asked in the other place regarding the number of school-leavers in our area, the figure was given as 24,000. We all know what a tremendous human problem arises when a youngster leaves school. The first thing he thinks about is finding a job. If a young man cannot get a job he often drifts into a pattern of life which makes it difficult for him to start work when the opportunity to do so presents itself.
The Government cannot escape from all the promises they made at the last Election. They were returned on a mandate to improve the economy and to restore full freedom of opportunity for everyone. I want that freedom of opportunity for the youngsters who will be leaving school. I want employment to be found for them and also for that large number of people in the development areas, or the distressed areas or whatever they may be termed under this Govern
958
ment. After their first 12 months of office this Government are being con demned. They are being condemned from all quarters, not only by those of us who spend the greater part of our lives in politics but up and down the country for the policies that they have pursued, the policies that they are now presenting and which can only result in further hardship upon those who will be least able to bear it. I sincerely hope that the time will not be far distant when we shall have the opportunity of going on the hustings again—and I take great pleasure in that—and presenting Labour's case against that of the performance of the Tory Government while they have been in office.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I just—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD STRABOLGI: No; sit down. You did not take part in the debate.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is sometimes questioned whether the House is able to make its will felt; it has on this occasion. I was rather doubtful whether I should take part in this debate at all, and noble Lords will be relieved to hear, if they believe me, that I shall not speak for very long. Quite apart from the fact that we have the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor speaking, the noble Earl the Leader of the house had intended to take part in the debate, and I would only say that we are very sorry he is not going to be here. He was good enough, about a fortnight ago, when I was not so well to wish me a speedy recovery, and we certainly wish him one.
In particular, I wanted very much to hear the two maiden speakers and to congratulate them. I knew that we should have two outstanding speeches, and I am hound to say that we arc rather lucky in our Baronesses in this House. I think that the Liberal Party have really gained a great addition to their numbers in the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I echo what my noble friend Lord Slater had to say about her, and I am sure that, now that this first ordeal is over—and making a maiden speech is always a little tricky —she will find that your Lordships are

959
in fact a kindly lot and are appreciative, and particularly of speeches as well directed and, if I may say so, reasonably brief as was the noble Baroness's speech. She can be very pleased with her debut.
The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth. I must say that when I was in the House of Commons I always thought that there were two people who were likely to be Prime Minister in a Conservative Government. One was the late Lain Macleod, and the other Sir Edward Boyle. Alas! Mr. Macleod is no longer with us. Perhaps I ought to add that I had a sneaking idea that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack might become Prime Minister—and at least we should have had a very lively Government. But both he and the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, are ensconced; and unless we alter the law neither will have the opportunity, except in the unlikely event of there being a Prime Minister who sits in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Boyle. was an outstanding figure and a great hope of his Party, and although I rather gather that his present position is somewhat located on the Cross-Benches, the wisdom and the clarity of his expression will always be popular here, and I congratulate him.
I said that I was going to speak briefly and I have nearly taken up my allotted time on congratulations. However, I want to say something about the debate. I knew that my noble friend Lord Beswick was determined to make a speech which would be statesmanlike, and it seems to me that he clearly succeeded. I think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare (and although he said he had some notes tucked away, they seemed to feature very prominently in his brief), slightly misunderstood the purpose of this debate. Clearly, that is why we belong to the Party we do: we are critical of the Government and the Government's policies, and there is a difference in philosophy. But I rather echo and will try to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hankey said. On the whole, we in this House do not spend time slanging one another, and I do not propose to go on any further about Mr. Heath's unfortunate statement, which can be explained away just like "the pound in your pocket". We might put a ban on both
960
those, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may intervene, I did not mean in my reply to be in the least bit Party polemical. I do not think, if the noble Lord looks at the whole speech, he will find that it was. I did not intend to bring up this matter until the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, did so.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord was very well briefed. We are both misunderstanding one another. I felt that he took up my noble friend a little more than his speech justified. He now thinks that I am taking him up more than his speech justified. We did not harass him any more because we were conscious that he moved in very sharply to fill the niche which would have been occupied by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; and I acknowledge that it is very difficult for a Government spokesman to be as frank as other people can be, although the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack is so very frank that I think he is perhaps one of the people who could manage to get away with admitting that the Governments of which they are members are not so successful as they arc compelled to maintain by the briefs put into their hands.
I am bound to say that talking about freedom with responsibility at this moment does not contribute very much to what is meant to be a serious discussion of a series of problems which I freely admit no Government have permanently and successfully solved. It is true that we have moved from a terribly restricted balance-of-payments situation, which inhibited all kinds of economic development, into a very free balance-of-payments situation, which does give the Government more freedom. My noble friend Lord Beswick was particularly clear in saying that it is no use just talking about reflation like that, saving "push the money in", and things will be all right. It is a much more complex and difficult problem. I want to talk about one or two points. The fact is that all the indicators are now pointing the wrong way. I must apologise here: the only speech I did not hear was that of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who I gather spoke with his usual vigour. Unemployment is certainly higher than

961
was expected, production much lower than expected. I do not want to argue about trends. Governments always try —so, let us face it, do Party headquarters—to get the maximum out of a set of figures. But there is no doubt that the position on production is disappointing and prices are rising faster than previously expected.
I am very nervous that, much as people may admire determination and obstinacy, and tenacity in Government, as my noble friend Lord Slater said, we have heard people saying that they refused to be blown off course and then, a little later, they are so off course that we find ourselves confronted with a much more acute crisis. It is an inherent fault of all Governments that members, in their speeches, always sound more complacent than I suspect they would in talking to one another in private. It is a strange thing in this context that, whereas the Government are seeking freedom in market forces (this is all I have to say on the subject of the Industrial Relations Bill), they want freedom for everything except industrial relations, which they want to regulate fully. It may well be that this is not the time to debate that point. Heaven knows! we have had the opportunity recently, and we have at least another three weeks of the Bill on Report, to debate it. However, it is a striking contrast in this freedom policy that in this area of human and personal relations the Government want to introduce regulations. There really is not that amount of consistency. I am being very careful. I am not doing anything of which the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, would not approve; I am just drawing attention to the contrast.
I want to say a few words on the most depressing aspect of the present situation; that is, the intolerable amount of unemployment, both general and structural. It is really rather miserable that we are once again having to talk about cases of structural unemployment, which was a term of so much sadness in relation to the basic industries of this country before the last War. I echo what my noble friend had to say in his Motion when he refers to "maximum social justice". We do not claim that it is possible to get a completely egalitarian society, but we think that it is possible to obtain a greater amount of equality.
962
If there is one major aspect of deprivation and injustice, it is the failure to provide employment. I say quite categorically that I would rather see a lower standard of living and full employment. I think we may have to make some of these choices. Every noble Lord who has spoken about unemployment has echoed how awful it is. Noble Lords like my noble friends Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Slater, have experienced it in its most bitter form. We have the figures. The fact is that there has been a large reduction in the number of jobs. To some extent that huge reduction in the number of jobs is masked by the fact, for one reason or another, that people have been falling out of employment—as my noble friend Lord Beswiek said—some because they were older, but some who would like to work under conditions of full employment.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was deeply concerned with, and brought great energy to, the intractable problem of the North-East, which nobody has yet solved. As employment diminishes in those areas, the new employment that is being created tends to be in such fields as offices, and the office employment is concentrated not in the areas where there is this basic structural unemployment. In this last year we have seen an increase in unemployment. Whereas in the South-East of England the increase has gone up to 1·9 per cent., in Wales it is 4·4 per cent., and in Scotland there has been a 1·4 per cent. increase to 5·4 per cent. Although the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggested that the rate of increase had been proportionate to the number, that does not absolutely fit my figures. But even if that is so, the numbers are vast. This is where ratio is a rather small piece of comfort in terms of the human reality of those thousands of people who are out of work.
There is the depressing situation that the period of time for which people are out of work is increasing. There was a theory a few years ago—and there is probably some truth in it—that people were taking more time between jobs, thanks to redundancy payments. In Scotland and Wales one in three of the unemployed have been out of work for more than six months; and in the Northern region 38 per cent.. and one in four for more than a year. This is what my noble friend Lord Slater was talking about. We

963
must face these facts. This is a real tragedy. Although there may be those who admire the determination of the Government not to be "blown off course", and to give "freedom with responsibility" and "stick to their policy", it will be intolerable if this amount of unemployment continues very long. With this increase in unemployment, the period of unemployment of a number of people will rise from one of six months or a year to one of two or even three years, and it soon may become this tragic "semi-lifetime".
I do not propose to recapitulate a number of the proposals that have been discussed. There were valuable speeches from my noble friends Lord Balogh, Lord Ardwick and Lord Ritchie-Calder, who have talked about the broad economic policy, and I do not propose to follow this line any further beyond stressing again that we must think what our social priorities are; and that is why in this Motion we are talking about maximum social justice. There are some things that can be done. The noble Baroness, Lady Scear, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and others referred to some of them. The Government talked about it and said that something was happening, and it may be that something is going on in the way of real manpower planning. This is not an easy thing. I remember that when I was Minister in charge of the Civil Service Department we gave some financial help and encouragement to setting up the Institute of Manpower Statistics. It is at a very primitive stage, and it is difficult work to carry out. In large spheres of industry it is not carried out and a lot of the facts are not available, but we do need to get the detailed facts if we are to achieve the matching between jobs and people.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, who referred to the way the Russians went about this task. If they have a graduate who is not found a job, he has to be kept by the university. This is quite a discipline. If we look at the amount of money we spend on labour exchanges and the employment services it may seem a lot—I think it is about £25 million—but it is minor in comparison to the economic as well as human gains achieved with an improved service
964
of this kind. If we only cut one day off the time of all the unemployed who pass through the labour exchanges, their days of employment would increase the number of man-days worked in industry by three million—in fact, more than the level of all the days we lose through strikes. These impressive statistics may not always be relevant, but this is the measure of the importance of this matter.
Here again, on the re-training side, what has been done in Sweden in comparison with this country is quite striking. If we were to do what the Swedes are doing to-day we should have about ten times our present effort on training. Noble Lords have said that there is a great deal of training and that it is increasing in industry. I believe my noble friend Lord Popplewell had something to say about this. Again, this is a major priority, and it is going to call for a major Government initiative. There are things which can be done at the moment and for which funds ought to be made available, for dealing not necessarily with the underlying symptoms of the economy but with the actual facts of unemployment and seeking to improve the process of fitting people to jobs and providing the opportunities. This is without regard to the general economic question which we have discussed.
I do not want to go on any longer. I only wanted to make these particular points. I would only say this. I have several times in this House said that the last Government were not entirely successful with their incomes policy. That has generally raised a laugh on the other side of the House, as if the truth were rather funny; but I think we ought to recognise our failures, and the Government must recognise that we do not believe that they are successfully coping with the problem. What alarms us is that they are slow to move, but I think they are beginning to move on an incomes policy, we are just beginning to see the possibility of an advance towards a voluntary incomes policy. I am particularly sorry that, even if they did not agree with them, the Government, did not treat Vic Feather's earlier proposals a little more seriously, instead of dismissing them contemptuously as the Chancellor did. I ask the noble Lord. Lord Aberdare, whose personal integrity and general niceness

965
we all respect, to recognise that we think that the trade unions and the Government must get together. The fact that the waters are so desperately muddied by the Industrial Relations Bill does not alter the fact that, sooner or later, there will have to be discussions and co-operation in economic matters.
Finally. if I may go back for one moment to the speech of my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, I think we shall need to have a debate in the near future to discuss the effects of this extraordinary patchwork quilt of subsidies to individuals, the means testing and so on, and consider whether or not the Government's no doubt well-intentioned policies are going to work at all. I think they have fallen into a sort of doctrinaire trap which is going to lead to very heavy administration and to produce the most absurd results—which again is damaging to confidence. If we go on very much longer, all the progress that we have been making socially, all the advance towards understanding and about the need for higher productivity, is going to be lost. Therefore, although we certainly have no intention of taking our Motion to a Division—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not provoke us into doing so—we think there are some very outdated concepts. So I have shortened my speech to allow my noble friend Lord Beswick, who so ably introduced this Motion, an extra few minutes to reply, if necessary, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
7.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, those last words fall like balm upon my ear. I thought the noble Lord was leading up to it by the relatively genial tone of the earlier part of his speech, and I shall be as genial as I know how. I am sure that the House will desire me to begin by congratulating the two maidens, whose speeches have met with universal acclaim, and I think sincerely meant acclaim. My noble friend Lord Boyle of Handsworth is such an intimate and old friend—we have worked together in a single Ministry; we have served together in more than one Cabinet and in one Shadow Cabinet—that it is almost absurd for me to shower compliments upon him. But it is a pleasure to see him here. I most bitterly regret
966
that by his own desire, and only by his own desire, he left us in the leadership of the Conservative Party for the groves of Academe; and although I respected his choice I did not agree with it.
He asked me a specific question about the figures announced, I think, in April by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I made inquiries and he will not be surprised to hear, having served in Arcadia, too, that it is premature to alter our assessment of those figures at the present time. I shall also, quite deliberately, not pursue his comments upon the need to reflate. I feel that the very carefully chosen words of my noble friend Lord Aberdare, at the beginning of the debate, dealt adequately with that subject. Indeed, students of style will see an almost uncanny verbal resemblance between the words he chose to employ in your Lordships' House, and a speech made to-day at a luncheon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is wonderful how great minds think alike! I have not previously had the pleasure of hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, but I greatly enjoyed her speech. May I say, without pursuing the matters with which she so ably dealt, except as I shall do as my argument develops, that I hope she will enjoy her membership of this House as much as we enjoy hearing her.
That brings me to the Motion which my noble friend Lord Dudley described as "spreading concepts like confetti". He said that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, sounded like an Election address. To my mind, it sounded more like a prospectus for Heaven. Real life is not like that, as I shall endeavour to show. There is a want of realism about this. But when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that he was not making Party points, and then enumerated the Party points which he was not of course going to make, I was rather tempted to agree with the criticism of his speech by my noble friend Lord Amory. When the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. called for a positive policy, what he really meant was that he knows perfectly well that we have a positive policy, but he does not like it. And when he called for an agreed policy, he meant that he wants us to go all the way in agreeing with his policy, which we think has already proved a failure,

967
and will go none of the way himself towards accepting any part of ours. My Lords, life is not like that. Let us face the fact that this is not going to happen.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, spoke of an agreed prices and incomes policy, and he will have noted that my noble friend Lord Aberdare, in measured but, quite clearly, friendly terms, made it clear that that is a policy which appeals also to us. He will also have noted that it met with response from the Back Benches by my noble friend Lord Amory, and from the Liberal Benches in the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. In that sense it must be that an agreement is desirable, but an agreement can come about only by way of discussion, rather than by way of negotiation. Bargaining counters are not acceptable on either side. What is desired is a discussion of what is best in the public interest, and I hope that that may very well take place.
Let me now come to some of the concepts in the Motion. The first point which we ought to get clear from the start—and I do not mean this in a polemical sense, although by implication it involves a criticism of two of the speeches that have been delivered—is that, so far as I can see, there is no question anywhere of going back to the 'thirties or the 'twenties. No argument has been presented which renders that even a remote possibility. I say that deliberately, because it seems important to stress it without seeming in the least complacent, for not to stress it would be foolish, cruel and irresponsible. It would be cruel because, for people who are unemployed or who may fear unemployment, to contemplate a return to the 'twenties or the 'thirties causes infinite distress. It is also foolish, because it overlooks the fact that the situation of the 'thirties was utterly different from the situation which obtains to-day.
The most obvious difference is that the situation of the 'thirties depended upon an international situation in which unemployment was rife in virtually every industrial centre in the world—in international economic situation that probably no unilateral action on the part of this country, pace the noble Lord, Lord Slater, could have retrieved. Whether,
968
should that situation return, international economic statesmanship would be adequate to contain it is something which I hope we shall never know, because I sincerely trust that the situation will not recur. What I do know is that there is no sign of its having recurred: and one noble Lord at least, in another context, pointed out that world trade, so far from being in depression, is in fact on the increase. It is increasing faster this year, I think, than last.
The second reason why I think we must put that matter entirely out of our minds is that the public sector of Government action, as well as the international situation, is wholly different. When I was a boy and then a young man, when all this was going on—and I remember it very clearly, because even then I had a certain interest in politics—the national budget was something in the nature of £800 million a year. That was the size of the total budget. We are now living in a situation in which the public sector—a phrase which would have been unthinkable in the 'twenties and 'thirties—accounts for £23,000 million a year.
When we are talking about market forces not being the whole answer to the question—a concept which has been taken up by the Motion and by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and by other noble Lords—one has to recognise that whether one regards (as we do) the role of market forces as larger than the Labour Party regards it or not, even if you take the last few months or the last year of the present Administration, there have been remissions of taxation to the order of £1,000 million a year in a full year, and there has been an increase in the cost of social services of £1,000 million a year in a full year. The fact of the matter is that, whether we talk in terms of market forces or of Government intervention or not, we are living in a totally different world from the 'thirties and 'twenties. Therefore I say it is both cruel and irresponsible. even if we do not take a complacent view of the unemployment situation, to talk in those terms at all. The fact is that we are not living in that world, there is no sign of our returning to it, and there is no possibility of this Government, or so far as I can see any other conceivable Government, seeking to return to it.

969
By the like token, if I may just dot the i's of the first point that I want to make, it would be wholly false to suggest (and I am happy to say that, so far as I know, it was not suggested even by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, although he was reported as making a speech out of doors to this effect) that this Government wish to use unemployment as in some way a bargaining counter or a weapon. The fact is that we intend to deal with it, and I will come in a moment to the various influences that one wishes to bring to bear. But something, at least, I think, which we can all agree about is that the only security of employment that can exist in this country in the long run is security of employment based upon a prosperous and viable industry properly managed and making a profit, whether one is talking about the public or the private sector. Our aim of policy is to create such an industry. That is the thing we mean to do, and we believe the way we mean to do it is correct.
The second point I want to make is that all the bad things which are listed in the Motion had appeared quite plainly prior to that magic date. June 18, 1970. The increase in unemployment had appeared, and in a most startling way. The rise in prices had commenced. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who directed a question to my noble friend Lord Aberdare. that in the six months from January to June, 1970, prices had risen by 5 per cent., which, I emphasise, over twelve months makes more than 10 per cent. because, of course, the compound interest effect takes place in the second half—and that is faster than they have risen in the year since. The startling rise in wage settlements had already appeared, and had played an important part in raising prices.
Our case—and the noble Lord has been so genial that I will put it as genially as I know how—is that the rise in prices and the inflationary nature of wage settlements in the months following October, 1969, were not unconnected with the desire of the Labour Government to win that General Election, and have caused most of the troubles from which we are now suffering, because that is when the rot set in. But they had arisen then. Again, if I may answer a question which I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, put to my noble friend Lord
970
Aberdare, my noble friend's figures were perfectly correct because the figures he gave were already seasonally adjusted.
The charge against us now is not that we brought these evils about; the charge is that we have not, in twelve months, arrested changes which were the fruits, as we think, rightly or wrongly, of six years of Labour Government. That is what makes the Motion and the speeches in support of it partly unacceptable to us. The question is whether you could have expected those tendencies to be arrested and reversed in twelve months. I did not, my Lords. What is more, we never led people to suppose that they would be.
At the invitation of the noble Lord I am not going into the question of what Mr. Heath did or did not say on June 16, 1970, because that has already been dealt with by my noble friend. But the fact is that we are entitled to he judged upon the total effects and impact of our Election speeches and our Election programme; not on one casual phrase, but the total impact. The fact is that we all agree that my right honourable friend Mr. Heath went around the country, that my then right honourable friend Mr. Iain Macleod went around the country, and in a much more modest way I went around the country, saying that our policy was a policy for a Parliament for four or five years. and that economic policies initiated by Governments—and these are almost the exact words I used in every Election speech in which I broached the subject—do not bite for a number of months, perhaps not even for years. We are still injoying the consequences of devaluation, good and bad.
These economic policies which Governments initiate are not to be judged on twelve months, my Lords. We think ours will be successful, but only a long enough period for their consequences to be seen is a just period on which to judge them. We never said, and we never led people to believe, that in twelve months a new era would have dawned in prices or in wage settlements. What we did not know was quite how serious the situation was, and that was largely because, as we say. the Labour Party had rather underplayed the seriousness of the situation in their General Election campaign. From all one could gather that sunny June a year ago, everything was all right as long as

971
Mr. Wilson was in his heaven; but no positive policy to deal with any of the matters which the Labour Party is now setting at the door of the Conservative Government. and all of which had emerged before June, 1970, as positive evils, was suggested by the Labour Party in their Election campaign. If noble Lords want to know why they lost the General Election, it was because their leadership never produced a positive policy to deal with prices, unemployment and wage inflation. That is why I think they lost.
However, we are now seeking a breakthrough, not only from the limitations of the policy of the Labour Government but also from the limitations of policies over the last 25 years. I think we shall succeed. But again we have to recognise that they are intractable problems, and have been found intractable not only in this country, and not only by a Conservative Government but by Governments of all complexions. But let us look for a moment at the policy which we have pursued. First, there have been remissions of taxation to the tune of £1,000 million in a full year. Most of that has not yet bitten. The tax remissions began as from April, but one of the most important ones, at least, is the £200 million in a full year to be expected from child allowances. They have not yet gone through the coding of the P.A.Y.E. The halving of the selective employment tax does not begin to apply until July. The increases in retirement pensions and other benefits do not begin until September. These are positive acts of policy, designed—I will not say to reflate; but the effect of which must inevitably be to create a more buoyant economy. They have not been given time to have their full effect, or even perhaps a significant effect. It is perhaps for that reason that my right honourable friend the Chancellor to-day was wise to avoid precipitate action.
The second thing I want to say is that we really must get away—and I made this point in November—from the idea of indiscriminate subsidies. It is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, to make a speech in which he talked about. a pattern of means tests for free school meals, free welfare milk, free dental treatment and free prescription charges. We did not invent those means
972
tests. They were invented by the Labour Government. What we have done is to raise the limits, so that in the case of school meals and welfare milk something like another 150,000 new recipients under the means test will get them free. What we have done in the case of prescription charges and in dental treatment is not to introduce the means test—that was the introduction of the Labour Government; that is the policy they were pursuing. The difference now is that half the recipients of medical prescriptions, about 22 million, will get them for nothing. That is the change that we introduced. Really the point made against those so-called means tests is not a valid one.
And I must say to the noble Lord that the other argument he made was equally invalid. He said—and rightly; and I deplore it—that there are probably people who do not wish to take advantage of these free allowances, either out of pride or because they are unaware of them. They are much more likely to be aware of them and much more likely to have the knowledge that the community at large regards this not as an element of charity but as an element of right, when more people arc entitled to take it, when, being a larger minority, they do not feel isolated. The point works in exactly the opposite way.
Of course, our remissions of taxation were criticised as doing an injustice. But where is the social justice of this? We are still in the brackets—they happen to be precisely the type of people in whom the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, described himself as interested—of the £2,000-a-year group: the skilled workers, the scientists, the graduates. We are still among the highest direct-taxed nation in the world, even after the Budget remissions are allowed. I gave some figures in November. The change is not all that startling. A man with two children with £2,000 earned income in this country after the Budget remission is paying 15 per cent. of that in direct taxation. In
France, the figure is 4 per cent. In America, it is 4 per cent. In Germany, it is 9 per cent. At £5,000 the figure would be a quarter in the United Kingdom; 11 per cent. in France; 12 per cent. in the U.S.A., and 19 per cent. in Germany. We believe that direct taxation under the previous Administration had become a social injustice, and that is why we are

973
remedying it. Much more important, we thought, and still think, that too heavy direct taxation is an inhibition on effective management and enterprise, because the cost of direct taxation inevitably reflects itself as a cost to companies that want to employ first-class executives.
If we are right in that diagnosis—and we believe that we are—it is meaningless for noble Lords in the Labour Party to say that we are benefiting the so-called rich at the expense of those less well off. The interest of those less well off is to have a viable economy, profitable enterprises and secure employment. And this is exactly what we arc about. We want to increase competition. If the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, wants an agreed policy, I should have thought that there is one. He speaks with contempt of our obsession with market forces. I think he is like one of those strange alchemists trying to exorcise non-existent ghosts with ineffective imprecations; because we never thought that market forces could solve all our problems. But here would have been an agreed policy.
I had thought it was the Coalition Government of 1944 which first drew attention to the fact that one of the troubles of modern industry was that we were not living in a state of perfect competition. I had thought that that was in the White Paper of 1944. I had thought it was Sir Stafford Cripps who, in the first Labour Government, introduced the first Monopolies and Restrictive Practices Act based on the same hypothesis. It was my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, whose speech I enjoyed and agreed with, who introduced in 1956 the existing restrictive practices legislation. When we say that we are going for increased competition we are in fact pursuing a policy which, whether it has been successful or unsuccessful, whether it is right or wrong, has been the successive policies of successive Governments. Is that not a positive policy?
My Lords, we can pursue this even further. We have introduced the Industrial Relations Bill. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, says that I must not talk about the Industrial Relations Bill: so I will not. But is not that a positive policy? He says that it is no substitute for voluntary agreement. My Lords, it was never intended to be a substitute for voluntary agreement. It is intended to he, to coin
974
a phrase. "in place of strife". It is the alternative to industrial unrest. We all recognise, and hope that the unions will recognise, that once it is on the Statute Book they will continue in the way they have gone when they claim that voluntary agreement and voluntary negotiation is the best way to industrial peace.
And, last, I cannot avoid, on this day, all reference to the Common Market. Is that not an economic policy material to this debate? Is it not a positive policy? can anyone doubt that entry into the Community would be part of an economic policy? It is of the essence of such a policy that it will conform to the prescription in the Motion "to bring about an expanding economy". But is it an agreed policy? If the Opposition have not been able to produce any other policy on any other subject, which I think is the net result of the situation of to-day's debate, what is in fact their attitude to this, the burning topic of the day? Did they not themselves initiate the current series of negotiations? Did not the present Leader of the Opposition, when Prime Minister—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Lord? Since he was wise enough to take the advice of my noble friend and not talk about the Industrial Relations Bill, I hope that he will not now start talking about a recent development which came to fruition only long after this Motion went on the Order Paper. We will discuss it; but I think it is unfair to introduce it at this moment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to be unchivalrous in this matter, but when we are being censured for not having a positive and agreed policy, and we have a positive and agreed policy for almost every other scheme including this, I think we should ask whether this ought not also to be an agreed policy. I am not going to talk about the events of to-day, or last night; I am talking about the matter about which the Labour Party has had 12 months to reflect. We were told in another place—I well remember the dramatic phrase when they initiated the negotiations—that "We are going places!". Exactly what place does the Leader of the Opposition in another place think he is going to? Where is this thing? Where is his sense of honour and

975
purpose? Where is all the "gritty determination" in Government which he promised?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Grittily and resolutely on the fence! My Lords, I can see that this is causing distress and pain to noble Lords on the Front Opposition Bench. I will not pursue this painful subject. I only say that if they really want to carry conviction anywhere, with anybody, they must first think up a policy of their own which shows some signs of success, and stop giving negative criticism to ours.
8.2 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it will not be a surprise, possibly, if I say that personally I should like to get away with the least delay. I should like to thank all those who have spoken in the debate, even those who, I am convinced, did not actually listen to what I had to say. With others, I should like again to offer my congratulations to the two notable maiden speakers. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made, if I may be allowed to say so, what I thought was an impressively authoritative speech on these social and economic problems. I thought the way in which she dealt with them showed clearly that she had an immense experience about which, I confess, I was ignorant as to detail until my noble friend who followed her made his speech. But I am absolutely certain that we shall look forward to the noble Baroness speaking again. I was moved by her plea for re-training, especially of the older persons; and this, I thought, illustrated the dual character of her approach: the social character on the one hand and the economic on the other.
I also humbly offer my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle of Handsworth, whose speech clearly commanded great respect. The noble Lord started by saying that he would not he expected to agree with the Opposition. I do not know why it should be expected that he could not agree with the Opposition. I thought academics searched for the truth wherever they might find it. Having said that he could not agree with what I had said, the noble Lord went on to say that reflation was not enough, which was exactly what I had said. He
976
advocated, and made an outstandingly good case for, a wages policy, which is what I tried to do. He said, also, that we must replace the Prices and Incomes Board with something similar; again it was something which I had tried to say. He added that the labour market tends not to work in the way in which some modern economists hold in theory that it should. This, again, was a point with which I dealt. So, my Lords, I can say quite sincerely that I shall look forward to hearing the noble Lord again.
To some extent I think I owe an apology to speakers from the Benches opposite. They thought I was going to move this Motion as a piece of Party propaganda; and some of the speeches which were made—including Lord Aberdare's speech—were rather geared to that proposition. They were in some difficulty when they found that that was not the type of speech I intended to deliver. My Lords. we are not simply asking for a re-run of the Labour Government's policies. We are asking that the alternatives to the present position, the present policy, ought to be looked at now together; and that it would be a good thing if the T.U.C., the C.B.I. and the Government could endeavour to come to some agreement.
May I say one or two words about what was said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. He did his best to be agreeable. I cannot quite remember now how many years ago it is since I first heard him speak. He was kind enough to say that I am his oldest political opponent in this House. and I have heard him through many different phases. All I will say about this evening is that at least the noble and learned Lord did not bring his bell with him. He criticised our Motion for its lack of realism. Is unemployment unreal? Are rising prices unreal? I am not going to bandy words with the noble and learned Lord about the rate of increase. It can be shown that whereas he spoke of our 5 per cent., in the last three months the figure was 14 per cent. But I do not believe that this is something which we ought to go into. The fact of the matter is, my Lords, that prices are rising and we have to do something about it.
The argument about market forces, is that unreal? I should have thought it something very real indeed. When I hear

977
the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, say that despite everything—and this I think the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said when challenged by my noble friend Lord Balogh—they would rely on market forces, I think the best answer is something said in that most interesting column which appears on the back page of the Financial Times:
" ' The Government believes ', said a recent newspaper report explaining and applauding the demise of the Prices and Incomes Board, ' that natural forces, if they are allowed to operate, will deal with all such diseases as wages and price inflation and effect, in their own inscrutable way, a recovery '."
It goes on to say:
" In these cynical days such sublime faith in the capacity of a political formula to perform its magic in a manner so mysterious as to defy coherent explanation may seem touching. Or is one to say, irreverently, that anyone who is foolish enough to believe that will believe anything?"
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack did, at any rate, make one step forward from that position of the crude natural forces formula. He said that there had been some response to what I had said about a Prices and Incomes Board. He also indicated that he, or the Government, were prepared to consider this—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, referred to a Prices and Incomes Board. I think he means an agreement.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, what was actually said was a "wages and incomes policy". But I earnestly say to noble Lords opposite, if that is what they are prepared to do, and no more, it is they who want to re-run old and failed policies. They just will not get success for another prices and incomes policy unless they try to operate it within the context of the sort of thing I was talking about.
My Lords, I simply end by saying that we have spoken of the way in which wages have exploded in this country; and it was said that they exploded in the last few months of the last Government as well as in the first year of this one. But it is also true that there has been a wages explosion in every country
978
in the Western world. There must be some truth here which we have to identify and which we have to take into account when we come to build up the new policies of the future.
For myself, I am content that my speech be read as well as that of the noble and learned Lord who sits upon the Woolsack. I hope that when I come to read his again I shall get some profit from it, and that the noble and learned Lord will perhaps feel, if he can exercise a little more sympathy when he comes to read what I have said, that it is not so bad as lie tried to make out. Meanwhile. I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

INVESTMENT AND BUILDING GRANTS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a. and to be printed.
PREVENTION OF OIL POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.
TRIBUNALS AND INQUIRIES BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with an Amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRENT RIVER AUTHORITY (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a. and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.