Sitting of 24 June 1971

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

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third reading read.
  Bill to be read the Third time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

  BRISTOL CORPORATION (WEST DOCK) BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second reading read.
  Bill to be read a Second time upon Thursday next at Seven o'clock.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Police
    Mr. Chichester-Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will outline steps which he has taken designed to strengthen the police force.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The recent pay award was designed to attract recruits and to reduce the premature loss of trained police. Recruiting publicity is continuing at a high level. Increased investment in equipment, transport and telecommunications is also planned.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Does the Home Secretary agree that one of the principal problems is that of wastage through premature retirement? Would that not be one of the most promising lines on which to try to advance?
    Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, the pay award was framed with that consideration very much in mind. I am happy to say that the wastage situation was better last year, and I am hopeful that this trend will continue.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: How far below establishment are present force levels, and how does the estimated recruiting target for this year compare with the annual average for the years 1965–70?
    Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I am not able to answer the second part of his supplementary question without notice. On the first part of his question, the establishment of the police force on 31st March this year was 109,000, against a strength of 94,000. Therefore, there is a difference of 15,000, which is large.

    Probation Service
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a further statement on a pay increase for probation officers.
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now make a further statement on pay increases for probation officers.
    Mr. Maudling: Following the reconstitution of the staff side of the Joint Negotiating Committee for the Probation Service, a further meeting of the Committee took place on 18th June. The staff side representatives did not then accept the employers' offer, which I described in my reply to a Question on 20th May by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), but negotiations are continuing.—[Vol. 817, c. 1496.]
    Mr. Fowler: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a strong probation service is absolutely essential if we are to reduce the almost overwhelming pressure on the prisons? Would it not be possible to offer an interim pay award accompanied by the setting up of an inquiry to look into the whole state of the probation service?
    Mr. Maudling: In a sense this is negotiation of an interim award since it comes in the middle of an exceptional 21-month period. I thought that the offer

    1565
    made by the employers' side was designed to be consistent with the Government's declared and retained intention to strengthen the probation service.
    Mrs. Renée Short: If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that as an alternative to prison sentences—which many people ought not to have—three ought to be a considerably expanded and strengthened probation service, will this system not collapse completely unless something can be done to keep probation officers within the probation service? Is he not aware that many probation officers are moving over to local government services, in which they can get very much better pay?
    Mr. Maudling: There is a Question later on the Order Paper which deals with the number of people leaving the probation service, but the pay offer that was made was designed very much with that point in view.
    Mr. Hooson: Is not the service so important that its remuneration should be comparable with what is being paid in local government social services? Is this not the crux of the matter, and in these circumstances should this not be treated as a special problem?
    Mr. Maudling: I agree with that. We have very much in mind comparability with local government social service scales. Although the probation service is on a fixed scale, local authorities have a recommended one; many authorities pay higher than the recommended scale, and this creates a practical problem.
    Mr. Raphael Tuck: Does the Home Secretary not realise that the offer made is not nearly competitive enough to encourage recruitment? Would he not look at this matter seriously in view of possible deterioration in the service since an increase in numbers is highly desirable?
    Mr. Maudling: Although the hon. Member asserts that, I do not accept his judgment. I think that the offer made, which was not only 8½ per cent. but also included a £70 allowance, which has been ignored in public comment, was designed to meet the requirements of the service and, I believe, would have done so.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is it not likely that the new negotiating team will meet
    1566
    the same fate as the old one if it agrees to an award anywhere near 8½ per cent.? Has not the point been reached when it is necessary for the Home Secretary himself to take charge of the situation and bring about a radical reappraisal in the pay scales for this most important public service?
    Mr. Maudling: I would not like to comment while negotiations are continuing, though I would like to point out that the 8½ per cent. when taken with the £70 allowance amounts in total to a figure more like 13 per cent.
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many probation officers are employed per 10,000 population in England and Wales; and how many are employed per 10,000 in the Rother Valley constituency.
    Mr. Maudling: At 31st May, 1971, 0·58 and 0·4 main grade officers respectively.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that probation officers in my constituency and the surrounding area are carrying extremely heavy case loads at present? What steps is he taking to secure further appointments so that the position may be improved greatly?
    Mr. Maudling: I understand that at present there are three vacancies in the team of probation officers serving the area in question. It is expected that these will have been filled by mid-September. I hope very much that that will happen.
    Mr. Bob Brown: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that the cost of keeping a man in prison compared with that of keeping him out of prison by means of the probation service makes it economic lunacy to allow the situation which has developed in the probation service to continue?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not agree, and the figures do not bear out what the hon. Gentleman says.
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the latest trends in recruiting to, and resignations from, the probation service; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Maudling: According to returns from probation authorities, 134 established officers joined and 70 left the service in the first five months of this year. The corresponding figures for the same period last year were 111 and 73.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the Home Secretary for that reply. Does he agree that, taking into account the conditions of service in this profession, the fact that there has not been a mass exodus is a tremendous tribute to the dedication of probation officers throughout the country? At a time when the Government, to their credit, emphasise the rehabilitation of offenders, is there not something rather sordid about exploiting the good will of social workers?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot accept the wording of the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I recognise the great devotion of all members of the service to their duties. It is right to point out that, despite what has been said, recruiting this year has been better than last year and that wastage this year has been slightly less than last year.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Is the Home Secretary aware that there is still a desperate shortage of probation officers throughout the country and that his own relatively progressive ideas in this sphere are likely to be frustrated unless he takes positive action to put the situation right?
    Mr. Maudling: One must not exaggerate. The total output of students for training this year will be about 350 compared with only 270 last year.

    Erroll Committee
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the first meeting of the Erroll Committee took place; and when he expects to receive its recommendations.
    Mr. Maudling: The Committee first met on 5th April. It is too early to say when it will report.
    Mr. Price: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable concern about the independence and scope of the Committee in view of the fact that he has already made up his mind and announced that our licensing
    1568
    laws are archaic? If the Committee decides that they are not archaic, does that not leave the right hon. Gentleman in a curious position, half-way up a gum tree looking stupid?
    Mr. Maudling: I am prepared to take that risk. I think that the laws are archaic. If the Committee comes up with the view that they are perfect, I and many others will be very surprised.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Erroll Committee paying some attention to the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission that the tied house system should be abolished or considerably amended?
    Mr. Maudling: I think there is a reference in the Committee's terms of reference to the views of the Monopolies Commission.

    Fire Service Examination
    Mr. Sillarsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the concern expressed in the fire service about the nature of question number 3 in the essay paper set by the Eastern Fire Authorities Examination Board for the leading fireman examination on 24th March, 1971; and what steps are open to the Government to ensure that such questions are not set in other fire service examinations by areas or the Central Examinations Board.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies): Arrangements for conducting the leading fireman's examination are for fire authorities or for local examination boards appointed for the purpose by groups of fire authorities. The Fire Services Central Examinations Board has, however, at the Home Office's request, drawn the attention of the Eastern Fire Authorities Examinations Board to the concern expressed about questions of the kind referred to by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Sillars: Are we to take it that the information sent out by the Home Office expresses the Department's concern that such a question should be set for a promotion examination in the first place? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the concern expressed by the fire service is genuine and not manufactured?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, I do. I think the question was not very tactful.

    Stray Dogs
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the operation of the law regarding stray dogs; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Sharples: The police do what they can to enforce the law on stray dogs but they have many other and more pressing duties.
    Mr. Janner: While I accept, to some extent, the hon. Gentleman's answer, is it not true, nevertheless, that there are about 100,000 stray dogs loose in the country at any one time? To many people, this is a serious problem, especially at holiday times when dogs are dumped on our roads. Many people do not regard this as a laughing matter. They feel that the law should be enforced and that the person who dumps a dog should never again be granted another dog licence.
    Mr. Sharples: I accept that this is a serious matter, and the hon. Gentleman was quite right to point out on the wireless this morning that Section 1 of the Abandonment of Animals Act, 1960, makes it an offence for an owner to abandon an animal, whether permanently or not, in circumstances likely to cause suffering.
    Mr. Redmond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Abandonment of Animals Act may apply to the unfortunate stray dog named "Sandy" which appears to have been left at Chequers by the previous occupant?

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Peter Archerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accused persons in each of the last three years pleaded not guilty, respectively, in magistrates' courts and on indictment; how many, respectively, were convicted; and in respect of each figure, in how many instances the accused was legally aided.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): In 1970 12,721 persons who appeared for trial on indictment in England and Wales pleaded not guilty; 6,397 of these were convicted. The figures for 1968
    1570
    were 10,251 and 5,487, and for 1969 10,837 and 5,405.
    I regret that the other information is not available.
    Mr. Archer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that the piece of information that he has not given was the whole point of my Question? If we are to be reminded consistently that the cost of legal aid rises year by year, will not our consideration of its cost effectiveness be more informed if we have the information?
    Mr. Carlisle: I said that the information which I suspected the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted was not available in the form that he required. In the higher courts, only 2·3 per cent. of all defendants are not represented. The number represented on legal aid in magistrates' courts has gone up substantially.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Boydenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will convene a conference of chief constables to consider improved methods of controlling vandalism.
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend is in regular touch with chief constables about matters of this kind and does not feel justified in convening a special conference.
    Mr. Boyden: Do the figures show that some areas are very much better in controlling vandalism than others? Would it not be a good idea for bad areas to get advice from the better ones?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, and there is a constant exchange of views between chief constables on matters of this kind. They are well aware of the problem.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is grave disquiet in local authorities about the amount of vandalism going on where the police are unable to help, quite apart from that on British Railways, which have their own police? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to look again at this serious matter?
    Mr. Sharples: I do not underestimate the problem, but the Criminal Damage Bill which is at present before Parliament provides a maximum penalty of 10 years'

    1571
    imprisonment for anyone convicted on indictment of intentionally damaging or destroying another person's property.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider, in consultation with his right hon. and hon. Friends, the possibility of establishing a high-level committee of inquiry or Royal Commission to examine the root causes of violence and vandalism in modern society?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, certainly. But the hon. Gentleman knows that the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge University is undertaking a study into this matter at present.
    Mr. Gurden: Is my hon. Friend aware that the delay in carrying out a compulsory purchase order leaves property vacant and subject to extra vandalism?
    Mr. Sharples: Yes, I am. This is a serious problem for the police.

    Electric Blankets (Safety Regulations)
    Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the proposed safety regulations about electric blankets will be in operation.
    Mr. Sharples: By the autumn.
    Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Department is to be congratulated on advancing the date for bringing in this Order? Is he aware that he is also to be congratulated, contrary to what I was about to do, on resisting the pressure of the trade to postpone the date?
    Mr. Sharples: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says. There is no intention of postponing this. The necessary consultations have to be carried out, of course.

    Serious Crime (Penalties)
    Mr. Joplingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he intends to take with regard to the call for tougher action against seasoned professional criminals, made by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in his report for 1970.
    Mr. Maudling: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question
    1572
    by the hon. Member for West Ham. North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 126–7.]
    Mr. Jopling: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a danger of organised crime increasing? If he is satisfied with the Commissioner's report that prison holds few terrors for this hard core of criminals, I hope he will not hesitate to make life in prison a good deal more uncomfortable for them.
    Mr. Maudling: I am not sure that I share that view. I am concerned not so much with the total growth of crime, which is slackening off, as with the growth of violent crime, which is advancing rapidly. The courts have available considerable powers of punishment, and it would be wrong for a Home Secretary to try to lay down guide lines as to how they should operate.
    As for conditions in prison, I believe that the deprivation of freedom is the real punishment and that, on the whole, conditions in prison should be primarily decent in order to encourage people to rehabilitate themselves.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his original reply, to which he referred, was unsatisfactory? Is he further aware that at the moment it is often quite profitable not only to commit a crime but, even when one gets caught, to find that there is no punishment or penalty to be paid for it? I see a look of consternation on the right hon. Gentleman's face.
    Mr. Maudling: I expressed consternation that I have not been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman by my answer. Broadly speaking, penalties available to the courts for punishment of serious crime are substantial. If there are any individual suggestions which the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, I should be glad to hear them.

    Tote
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to increase the efficiency and profitability of the Tote.
    Mr. Maudling: I am aware of the problems confronting the Totalisator Board and I am in touch with the Chairman about them, but I am not yet in a position to say more.
    Mr. Ashton: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in a good profitable year the Tote has been expected to plough its profits back into racing and that in a bad year it has been expected to stand the losses? Would it not be a good thing if he could arrange for some money to be given to the Tote for a computer so that it could increase its efficiency in off-course cash betting and compete on equal terms with the large bookmakers?
    Mr. Maudling: I am concerned about the difficulties facing the Tote Board. It is true that in the past when it has been doing better it has carried a pretty heavy proportion of the levy. I am studying this matter and I should be grateful for any helpful suggestions.
    Mr. Wingfield Digby: Is my right hon. Friend sure that the Tote Board has enough power to show the same initiative as it did with the jackpot and as it has recently shown in reducing the lower limit for credit betting?
    Mr. Maudling: Yes. I was glad to see the recent moves which it made in consultation with us. I am studying all other possibilities which can be brought to my attention to enable it to strengthen its business.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Home Secretary tell the House for how many years the Tote has not paid the annual levy to the Horserace Betting Levy Board and what is the total sum involved?
    Mr. Maudling: I cannot give the exact figure. In the past the Tote has been required to make a contribution of 25 per cent. of the total cost against the share of betting turnover of 5 per cent. It is only in the last year or two that it has not been in a position to make a contribution. It may be rather more than I said. I cannot give the exact figure.

    Immigration Bill
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he proposes to have with community relations organisations in connection with the Immigration Bill, and, in particular, concerning the registration provisions of the Bill.
    Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend proposes to consult the Community Rela-
    1574
    tions Commission before making regulations about police registration.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that change of attitude, because he refused to give an undertaking to that effect during the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill. Does he not think it would be appropriate to convene a series of meetings of community relations councils on a regional basis to attempt a dialogue between the Minister and those most directly affected with the day-to-day work of creating harmony between people of different races?
    Mr. Sharples: As I said when the House was discussing the Immigration Bill, the correct channel of communication between the Home Secretary and the community relations councils is through the Community Relations Commission. The councils themselves know that any view which they express, directly or through the Commission, will be carefully considered.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: While welcoming such consultations, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he agrees that it is quite improper for community relations organisations in receipt of public funds to create political agitation, with the assistance of groups on one side of politics, against the Immigration Bill?
    Mr. Sharples: I think I am right in saying that my hon. Friend has a later Question down about this matter.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, indeed I have.
    Mr. Molloy: Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis)? As local authorities, education authorities and library associations have conferences, and as community relations people are now part and parcel of our ordinary local authority set-up, will the hon. Gentleman encourage them to have an annual conference not merely on this issue but to make it an established fact and put them on the same basis as the other organisations which I have mentioned?
    Mr. Sharples: How they conduct their business is a matter for them. The Question relates to representations to my right hon. Friend. As I said, the

    1575
    correct channel for such representations is through the Community Relations Commission.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will the Minister make it clear that these community relations bodies are entitled to express a view about what they conceive to be the likely working of the Immigration Bill?
    Mr. Sharples: Having been disinclined to be drawn into giving an answer to a later question in reply to my hon. Friend, it would be discourteous to do so now in reply to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

    Firearms Act, 1968
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement relating to the review of the Firearms Act, 1968.
    Mr. Sharples: The review is making good progress, but I cannot yet estimate when it will be completed.
    Mr. Molloy: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. When the review is complete will he make a statement to the House? Will he also consider points which have previously been made in the House by many hon. Members on both sides who are perturbed about the mild sentences which have been dished out to hardened thugs who carry firearms? Is it not time we made it illegal and imposed heavy penalties for carrying a gun in any circumstances?
    Mr. Sharples: That suggestion would involve certain difficulties. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the outcome of the review will be communicated to Parliament.

    Captive Whales (Custody and Feeding)
    Dr. Gilbertasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek powers to enable him to make regulations regarding the custody and feeding of captive whales.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no information to suggest that legislation for this purpose is needed.
    Dr. Gilbert: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention been drawn to the
    1576
    recent unruly conduct of a certain male whale in my constituency which resulted in a grown man being dragged unconscious to the bottom of a pool in Dudley Zoo and having to spend three days in hospital? Does he realise that with the spread of dolphinariums and such things throughout the country it is essential for the protection of small children that there is adequate supervision of the animals and that the possibility of danger to the public is limited?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware of the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but legislation would not have any effect in this sphere.

    Prison Industries
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new work industries are proposed for Her Majesty's prisons.
    Mr. Carlisle: In general, prison industries will continue to rely on developing the woodworking, engineering, clothing and textiles, weaving, laundry and metal recovery industries. The scope for expansion in electro-mechanical and plastics work is being explored.
    Mr. Cox: I welcome that reply. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that one of the top priorities within the prison service should be the introduction of constructive new work industries, especially for long-term prisoners? I suggest that it is time we did away with mail-bag sewing and brush-making which still abound in so many prisons and are of no benefit as such to either prisoners or society.
    Mr. Carlisle: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are anxious to secure an extension of work within prisons. This has to be viewed in conjunction with the present problem of overcrowding, but within those terms we are doing the best we can to expand the prison industries.

    Fines
    Mr. Wigginasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money is owing in unpaid overdue fines to magistrates' courts in England and Wales at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Carlisle: I regret that this information is not available.

    1577
    The total amount of fines outstanding on 31st March, 1971, in England and Wales, outside Inner London, was £6,381,604. But this included fines for which the time for payment had not expired.
    Mr. Wiggin: My hon. and learned Friend will note that my Question asks about overdue fines. Will he say why such a large sum is involved and, indeed, why any fines are unpaid?
    Mr. Carlisle: As I said at the beginning, and I apologise to my hon. Friend for this, it is impossible to find the answer to his Question because the figures that we keep do not distinguish between fines that are overdue and those for which time for payment has been given. My hon. Friend asked why anything is ever overdue. The answer is that people do not carry out the commitments which they are required to by the courts.
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to make available to magistrates a summary of Section 31 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, dealing with the relationship of fines to the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that courts need to be reminded of these provisions, to which they have ready access.
    Mr. Loughlin: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the courts have no need to be reminded of this. May I point out to him that a recent Home Department circular has been sent to courts in respect of the absence of any uniformity of fines in motoring offences? If a circular of that kind can be sent to the courts, why is it not necessary to send circulars to magistrates to draw their attention to the Section of the Act to which I have referred?
    Mr. Carlisle: The uniformity of fines is a different matter. The Home Office has no reason to believe that the requirement of the court, when fixing a fine, to take into consideration, among other things, the means of the person being fined is being disregarded.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that
    1578
    many courts are still imposing fines that are ludicrous in relation to the person's means? When fines of £60 to £70 are imposed on an unemployed labourer with many children or on a person who has been deprived of his livelihood because he has lost his licence, one wonders how the fines will be paid.
    Mr. Carlisle: It would be improper for me or for any Minister at the Home Office to comment on fines imposed by courts in individual cases. That must be a matter for the discretion of the court.
    Mr. Loughlin: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    James Hanratty (Inquiry)
    Miss Lestorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what conclusions he has now reached regarding an inquiry into the A6 murder.
    Mr. Loughlinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a further statement on the case of the late James Hanratty.
    Mr. Willeyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now make a further statement on the holding of a judicial inquiry into the conviction of James Hanratty.
    Mr. Maudling: I have read the recently published book by Mr. Paul Foot and I have studied a full and detailed analysis of all the information now available in my Department about this case. It is not my function to retry a case on the basis of evidence and arguments previously considered by the courts, but only to consider whether there is any information that was not before the courts which might justify me in recommending the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy. Before coming to a decision on whether any further action is required on my part I have thought it right to ask Mr. Foot whether there are any significant new factors to which he would especially wish to call my attention. I shall make a further statement as soon as I am in a position to do so.
    Miss Lestor: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. I think I speak for all in the House who have

    1579
    shown a keen interest in the case when I say that I welcome the close attention which the right hon. Gentleman is giving to what many people consider to be new evidence. Without suggesting that the right hon. Gentleman should in any way skip over any vital matters, may I ask him to bear in mind the great interest and concern, particularly to the Hanratty family, in his making his announcement as soon as possible?
    Mr. Maudling: This is an immensely complicated matter. The volume of documentation is tremendous, and I am determined to carry out my responsibility of making up my mind on whether there are new factors which should be taken into account.
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern, but may I ask whether he will arrange to meet Mr. Foot very soon? There has been considerable delay since this matter was first raised in the House. In the light of Mr. Foot's book, and in the event of the right hon. Gentlemen having a discussion with him, will he be prepared to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have shown a special interest in the case?
    Mr. Maudling: I shall be glad to discuss the matter with hon. Members who have shown an interest in the case, and I am looking forward to hearing from Mr. Foot on this matter, but in defence of the Home Office and of myself I must tell the House that the documents run into millions of words, and one cannot sort this thing out in a short time.
    Mr. Whitehead: I welcome the close attention which the right hon. Gentleman has given to this matter throughout. Would he accept that an inquiry into whether there should be an inquiry cannot equal in length or depth, and certainly not in fairness, the public inquiry itself into the guilt or innocence of James Hanratty? May we expect the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman's decision before the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Maudling: I shall not make an announcement until I have satisfied myself that I have been into every particular. I shall make the announcement as soon as possible, but I cannot say when that will be.
    Sir E. Bullus: I thank my hon. Friend for his decision. May I ask him to confirm that his decision is no reflection on the concern and anguish experienced by previous Home Secretaries when asked to review this case?
    Mr. Maudling: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think I am following the precedent of my predecessors, who were always willing at any time to consider anything new that might bring new factors into the situation.
    Mr. Elystan Morgan: Will the Minister confirm that the study will not be confined to what appears in or is referred to in the book itself? In particular, will he check up on a document—namely, the first statement by Miss Valerie Storey—which was not available to Mr. Paul Foot, and, as I understand it, was not produced either at the committal proceedings or at the hearing itself?
    Mr. Maudling: That is one of the features of the case, certainly.

    Guard Dogs
    Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to make a statement on his investigations into matters concerning the use of guard dogs.
    Mr. Maudling: I have now received reports from chief officers of police. In 1970 rather more than 200 attacks by guard dogs were reported to the police in England and Wales. This includes attacks by dogs with handlers and attacks on employees or trespassers in the guarded premises. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are not satisfied on the evidence so far available that it would be desirable or feasible to prohibit the use of unattended guard dogs, which are widely owned or employed to protect property and to deter theft and vandalism; but a more detailed analysis is being made of the incidents known to the police, and we shall consider, in consultation with chief officers of police, whether there is any other effective action that could be taken to reduce the number of incidents.
    Mr. Lewis: May I express the appreciation of the House, and of people outside, for that report. No one has suggested that people should stop using guard dogs.

    1581
    What hon. Members and the public outside have said is that there should be stricter control of the people in charge of them. We pay tribute to the way in which the police look after their guard dogs, but there are some organisations and persons who should not be in charge of any dog, let alone a guard dog. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider some system of special licence so that these people—[Interruption.] Hon. Members know that no one stops me from barking. This is a serious matter, because some organisations use savagery and thuggery against the dogs in their so-called training of them. These people ought to be licensed. Ought there not to be some stricter control over some of these organisations?
    Mr. Maudling: If people use savagery and thuggery, they are committing an offence, and if it is known to the police they will be prosecuted. On the general question of licensing dogs, the reaction to the hon. Gentleman's question shows that it is not an easy one to answer.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there never was a need for an inquiry into the use of guard dogs, which only do the job they have been trained to do, but, rather, the inquiry should be directed to those parents who allow their children to run wild on the streets without supervision and, in consequence, endanger them?
    Mr. Maudling: That is a very much wider point. I think that there is concern about this. There have been incidents of a tragic character and it must be my concern, wherever possible, to prevent tragedies from happening.

    Parole System
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons have been released on parole conditions from Her Majesty's prisons during each of the past three years; and how many have had to be recommitted to prison because such parole conditions have been broken.
    Mr. Carlisle: During the 12 months beginning 1st April, 1968, release on parole was approved for 1,559 prisoners serving determinate sentences in England and Wales and 43 persons on parole were recalled. The figures for the 12 months
    1582
    beginning 1st April, 1969, were 1,840 and 94, and for the 12 months after that 2,610 and 166.
    Mr. Wainwright: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he assure us that every case will be judged on its own merits and that if there are any special rules for allowing people out on parole, he will review these rules from time to time? Will he bear in mind that the impact of the first 14 days in prison is a greater cure for first offenders than letting them stay in longer and therefore getting used to the prison sentence?
    Mr. Carlisle: There are no rules other than that no one may be released on parole before he has served a third of his sentence or 12 months, and that the Home Secretary can release no one on parole unless recommended to do so by the parole board. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, within those terms, the parole board looks at every case which is referred to it on its merits.
    Mr. Fowler: Would my hon. and learned Friend not agree that those figures show the outstanding success of the parole system, that there is, therefore, no justification for believing that professional criminals are being released on parole, and that any who pin their hopes on that are likely to be disappointed?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. I believe that the scheme has been very successful. The fact that the recall rate is about 5 per cent. bears that out. On the second part of the question, I can confirm what my hon. Friend said. I would remind the House that of the 2,201 cases in which parole was granted in 1970, only 43 involved an offence of robbery with a sentence of six years or more.
    Mr. Tinn: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman give us a little more information about the reasons for recall in the small number of cases in which it was applied? Was it normally because other offences had been committed or for more technical reasons?
    Mr. Carlisle: I can assist the hon. Member only to this extent, that of those who have been recalled, only about half had actually committed further offences. The other half would be in breach of other terms of their parole licence.

    Shops (Thefts)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now take steps to distinguish, in the crime statistics for the purpose of identification, between thefts from supermarkets and thefts from non-self-service shops.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend is not at present satisfied that the extra staff and expenditure which would be needed to record additional information of this kind would be justified.
    Mr. Adley: But is my hon. and learned Friend aware that supermarket shopping has brought about a fundamental social change in the last few years, which has brought problems to a number of people? Is he further aware that some supermarkets are now employing security firms which seem more intent on cure than on prevention? Would he seriously have a long hard look at this, because a small but significant number of people are finding themselves in very great difficulties?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am fully aware of my hon. Friend's concern and interest in this matter, but I do not think this would justify keeping statistics in the way he asks.
    Mr. Proudfoot: Does my hon. and learned Friend admit that there is no technical difference between the amount of shrinkage in both types of store mentioned in the question?
    Mr. Carlisle: I cannot answer that without further notice.
    Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

    Immigration
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the increased entry of East African Asians, and the shortage of jobs and accommodation, he will take steps to announce a date for the general suspension of immigrants for settlement.
    Mr. Maudling: No, Sir.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: As an opponent of capital punishment, may I point out with apologies that the word "immigrants" in the Question should be "immigration".
    Is my right hon. Friend not aware that it would be of the greatest psychological value to community relations if he could make a statement of the kind indicated in the Question?
    Mr. Maudling: I made a carefully thought out statement about this problem which involved a simultaneous increase in the permits to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa and at the same time a substantial reduction in the quota available to unskilled people from the right balance, and public opinion has largely accepted that it has succeeded.
    Mr. Bidwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a special obligation on this country in regard to stateless people, and that among them are people of very high educational level? Would he see to it that no impediment is placed in their way in finding their way to middle-class areas like Chigwell?
    Mr. Maudling: I do not quite see that the question of stateless persons comes into this question.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the question of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) is a red herring? I am not disputing my right hon. Friend's decision on East African Asians; I am asking him to say that the time has now come to receive no more immigrants for permanent settlement.
    Mr. Maudling: I do not think that is right. A total ban on immigration for permanent settlement is wrong. We have announced what we are doing about the reduction of certain forms of immigration. But my hon. Friend must recognise that his Question placed this proposal of a general suspension firmly in the context of East African Asians.

  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister which Minister is responsible for liaison with Commonwealth countries in relation to the United Kingdom's negotiations to join the European Economic Community.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has overall responsibility for our relations with Commonwealth countries. In addition, throughout the negotiations my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has kept in close touch with all Commonwealth Governments.
  Mr. Molloy: Is the Prime Minister aware that when his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy emerged from the tough talks and was described as tired and bleary-eyed but also as saying that he had broken the back of the negotiations, many people felt that he might have broken the back of the British Commonwealth of Nations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish !"] I know that this is not of much interest to the Conservative Party. In view of the seriousness of this situation, would the right hon. Gentleman confer with the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy to see whether, even at this stage, it is worth while calling a special conference of the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. Member's thesis. As I told the House before, if this country becomes a member of an enlarged Community by far the greater number of the Commonwealth countries will themselves have direct arrangements with that enlarged Community for their trade. As to the last part of the hon. Member's question, this matter was discussed at the last Commonwealth Conference in Singapore and I myself gave a full account of the negotiations. There was also a long discussion in which most Prime Ministers and Heads of Government took part. It is better that these things should be discussed with individual countries thereafter, because the problems of individual Commonwealth countries are so different.
  Mr. Blaker: Has the Foreign Secretary discussed with the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada the reason why, since the Community was founded, the exports of those countries to the Community have increased many times faster than their exports to this country?
  The Prime Minister: Those facts are true. It has been characteristic of the members of the Commonwealth ever since 1947, with the development of the G.A.T.T., greatly to diversify their patterns of trade. This has obviously affected the proportions of their trade with this country as well as with other members of the Commonwealth, and has increased their proportion of trade with the E.E.C.

  MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE (BROADCAST)
  Mr. Atkinsonasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a British Broadcasting Corporation programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Prime Minister if the public statement made by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on 9th June, 1971, on the question food prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th June on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on food prices represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 9th June on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme concerning price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Barnesasked the Prime Minister if the public statement on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on Wednesday, 9th June, by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and

  1587
  Food on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Eadieasked the Prime Minister if the public statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Wood on a British Broadcasting Corporation programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister whether the public statement of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on British Broadcasting Corporation radio on 9th June, 1971, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. Arthur Davidsonasked the Prime Minister if the broadcast statement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on a British Broadcasting Corporation radio programme on Wednesday, 9th June, on price increases represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; although the interpretations put on it by hon. Gentlemen opposite do not.
  Mr. Atkinson: By that answer, is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that the promises which were made at the last General Election should not now be taken seriously? In view of the fact that, since the election, prices have increased by 10 per cent. and, according to today's figures, unemployment has increased by 34 per cent., would he not agree that that was a pretty callous promise to make if the Government had no intention of doing anything about it? Second, does he agree with his right hon. Friend when he said that until wages are controlled there will be no reduction in food prices?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend did not say that promises should not be kept—exactly the reverse—[Interruption.]—and it is because this Government have kept so many of their promises that hon. Gentlemen opposite are so bitterly opposed to us.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the Prime Minister aware that on the day he made that speech, 16th June, 1970, we were told
  "Heath puts his shirt on the housewives"
  but that the very housewives on whom he put his shirt have seen through his mendacity—[Interruption.]—on that occasion, as is evidenced by the local elections—
  1588
  [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and all the by-elections that have taken place? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that he will never be taken seriously again? Incidentally, would he be kind enough—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is enough. At least eight hon. Members are hoping to catch my eye to put supplementary questions. I ask the hon. Gentleman to curtail his supplementary question.
  Mr. Davis: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain how "at a stroke" he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—reduced the rise in unemployment?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order—
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) wish to put a point of order to me?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Could it wait till the end of Question time?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, if that would be more convenient, Mr. Speaker.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Davis: Order. May I have an answer to my supplementary question?
  The Prime Minister: I could not hear a thing the hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. John Fraser: Wash the sea water out of your ears.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us, like Mrs. Dale, are getting a little worried about Jim, and we all remember what happened to him? [Laughter.] Is he further aware that the sacking of incompetent Ministers is no substitute for a General Election, at which the British people can have a chance to be serious?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has a Jim. He has every right to be worried about him. [Laughter.]
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Davis: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order that can be left till the end of Question Time?
  Mr. Davis: Not really, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the Prime Minister did not hear my supplementary question. May I take the liberty of repeating it?
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. Speaker: I think not.
  Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not clear, bearing in mind the price rises that were in the pipeline, that the then Prime Minister ended his responsibility "at a stroke" and had the General Election in June, 1970, when he could have gone on governing for another year? Will my right hon. Friend please say how much of the short-term debt of £1,500 million has been paid off by the Conservative Government?
  The Prime Minister: Those figures are, of course, published in the Bank of England Review. What my hon. Friend said in the first part of his supplementary question is quite correct. The former Prime Minister could have gone on for another year, but he suddenly terminated his responsibilities; but, then, it was all planned in April, 1966.
  Mr. Barnes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food introduced a further modification to his 16th June statement in the debate on Tuesday, when he said that the Prime Minister was, in fact, talking about reducing the rate of the rise in prices of a year earlier? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend is apparently now claiming to have achieved something by holding food price rises at the astronomical 10½ per cent. at which they have been rising since last June?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wants prices to go on rising, he had better say so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and if he and his hon. Friends do not want S.E.T. to be halved, they had better be honest and say that as well.
  Mr. Eadie: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute what he said at the General Election, would he care to tell the Scottish people what he said on that occasion about unemployment? Is he aware that it has been announced today that the unemployment figures for Scotland have increased yet again—and this in summertime, which makes the position scandalous and disgraceful? Will he
  1590
  do the honourable thing and resign and go to the country? [Interruption.]
  The Prime Minister: Not only am I prepared to deal with these matters in Scotland but in the last week I have discussed them with shop stewards from the Clyde and with the Scottish T.U.C., and I am meeting the Lord Provost of Glasgow and his colleagues this afternoon.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will my right hon. Friend help us further on the question of the election date—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—and tell us how he reconciles the statement in the memoirs of the Leader of the Opposition—incidentally I trust that he has not been abducted—that the election date was fixed in 1966 with the statement of his never-to-be-forgotten though never-to-be-seen colleague the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman)—[Interruption.]—that the date was fixed before the rises in prices had caught up with the rises in wages?
  The Prime Minister: The right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Cross-man) revealed what we had known all along, that the decision to have the General Election was taken at the moment when hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that wages increases were highest but had not worked through to price increases. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have been so annoyed because they failed in that manoeuvre. [Interruption.] As the Leader of the Opposition himself recently revealed, it enabled him on the night of Friday the 19th to sit down and work out the chapter headings for his memoirs, and then to fill them in. [Interruption.]
  Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are over one quarter of a million unemployed people who are not interested in his smug repartee? [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] When he said on 16th June that unemployment would be "cut at a stroke"—[Interruption.]—was that to be taken seriously? If so, and if unemployment was to be cut at a stroke, when will the figures of unemployed stand at less than they stood when he made that statement?
  The Prime Minister: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that tens of millions of people in this country are not amused by this sort of frivolous behaviour on the Order Paper—
  Mr. John Fraser: Look who is talking !
  The Prime Minister: —frivolous behaviour which produces this sort of fracas on the benches opposite, from which I notice with interest that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has now contracted out.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Does not the Prime Minister consider it time for the Government to issue a revised list of promises — [Interruption.] — underlining those which should be taken seriously?
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Davidson: May I have an answer to my supplementary question.
  The Prime Minister: I could not hear it.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue a revised list of promises underlining those which he considers the electorate should take seriously?
  The Prime Minister: The Government will pursue the policies we set out at the General Election. The fact that we have done so in foreign affairs, without the reform of industrial relations—[Interruption.]—the reform of the social services and the reform of the tax system will always stand to the record of this Government and succeed in defeating hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Longden: Would my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the rise in food prices is due to the rise in world commodity prices, over which no Government here can have any control?
  The Prime Minister: It is true that the price of basic commodities such as beef and butter have risen continually in world markets. It is also undoubtedly true that the increase in the price of steel, which we held back, has contributed to the rise in the cost of manufactured foodstuffs.
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Prime Minister aware that what the people of this country are now interested in is not the date of the last General Election but the date of the next General Election? Will the Prime Minister also state clearly whether he did or did not promise to reduce the rise in prices at a
  1592
  stroke, and how does he reconcile this with the rate of increase of 10 per cent. over the past year?
  The Prime Minister: The country wants to see the policies which we are operating carried through to fruition—[Interruption.]—and that is what it is going to get. We said that we would cut S.E.T. and stop the nationalised industries' prices rising as much as they wanted them to do, and that is what we have done.
  Mr. Jenkins: Would the Prime Minister please answer the question that I put to him? Did he or did he not say that the Government would reduce the rise in prices at a stroke, and how does he reconcile this with what has happened?
  The Prime Minister: What we said was that we would cut S.E.T.—[Interruption.] I am glad to have confirmation that the party opposite does not want S.E.T. cut and that they do not want the nationalised industries—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear what the Prime Minister has to say.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he wished to raise a point of order at the end of Questions. I wait to hear him.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I could not hear you call me, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for calling me on this point of order. It will be within the hearing of the House that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) accused the Prime Minister of mendacity. [Interruption.] As this is merely a pompous, legalistic latinism for lying—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—would you, for the guidance of hon. Members, particularly on this side of the House, who may wish to refer to the incredible speeches and statements from the Opposition side, rule whether that is a parliamentary expression? If it is not, will you ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a well established principle that the Chair rules

  1593
  on words which it has been able to hear. A great deal of noise may have advantages or disadvantages. I did not hear the remark to which the hon. Member has referred.
  Dr. David Owen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since you rose on a point of order and the Prime Minister continued to speak, and the House, while you were standing on a point of order, failed to catch his words, will he answer the question, the reply to which the country has been waiting for a year to hear—why he has failed to fulfil his General Election pledge on rising prices? My point of order is that if Mr. Speaker rises on a point of order, surely that should apply to the Prime Minister as it applies to everyone else, and the House should now have the opportunity to hear his answer.
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. It is an observation on the fact that if there is a great deal of noise and if Members shout "Answer" very loudly without allowing the answer then to be heard, they must suffer the consequences.
  Mr. Onslow: As a study of the Order Paper reveals clearly that there must have been some sort of childish conspiracy amongst eight members of Her Majesty's Opposition to table identical Questions and so seek to monopolise the time of the House at Question time, may I ask whether it will normally be your practice, Mr. Speaker, to allow supporters of Her Majesty's Government no opportunity to balance their contribution to the exchanges, either by reducing the number of supplementary questions you are prepared to call from the gang opposite to, say, no more than three, or at least to allow supporters of Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to ask supplementary question for supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this point. I have no evidence at all of what he described as a conspiracy. Obviously, the Chair was placed in a certain difficulty by these Questions; therefore, I called three hon. Members from the Government side and interspersed them among the various hon. Members who had put down Questions.
  Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister
  1594
  said that Questions Q2 to Q9 were frivolous. As it is not possible under Standing Orders to put frivolous Questions on the Order Paper, are we to take it that the Prime Minister meant that the rise in prices and the rise in unemployment is the frivolousness of the Questions, or would he reconsider his words when he accuses hon. Members on this side of the House of putting down frivolous Questions on these important matters?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would you direct that it be recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT that when my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to the record unemployment figures for Scotland, there was laughter from the Government benches?
  Mr. Speaker: That is a frivolous question.
  Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a well established principle—to use your words—that when a Minister, even a Prime Minister, chooses to group a large number of Questions together, and that is his choice, those who have put down those Questions are enabled first to ask the supplementary questions? May we take it that you are now introducing a new rule into the House without consultation or discussion among hon. Members?
  Mr. Speaker: No. As was pointed out to me yesterday, I am a servant of the House, and I must be guided by, for example, the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which encouraged me on occasion not to permit an hon. Member to ask any supplementary question at all. So I think I have acted in accordance with a reasonable procedure. When there are eight Questions on the Order Paper from one side of the House, it is reasonable to allow a number of supplementary questions from the other side.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House if he will state the business for next week.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 28TH JUNE—A debate on an Opposition censure Motion on prices and unemployment.
Motion relating to the Grant-Aided Secondary Schools (Scotland) Grant (Amendment) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 29TH JUNE—Remaining stages of the Civil Aviation Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 30TH JUNE—A debate on steel, which will arise on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Iron and Steel (Borrowing Powers) Order.
THURSDAY, 1ST JULY—Supply (25th Allotted day): There will be a debate on the Consultative Document on the National Health Service Reorganisation.
Motions on the Special Roads (Classes of Traffic) Orders.
At Seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has named Opposed Private Business for consideration.
FRIDAY, 2ND JULY—Second Reading of the Housing Bill and of the Hijacking Bill.
Remaining stages of the Medicines Bill and of the Criminal Damage Bill (Lords).
MONDAY, 5TH JULY—Progress on the Report stage of the Finance Bill.
Mr. Harold Wilson: In view of the concern which I understand was expressed earlier, may I express my apologies through the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to his colleagues for my lateness in arrival this afternoon, for a reason for which I think that the right hon. Gentleman will be glad to bear some of the responsibility, namely, the statement which is to be made to the House shortly by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Statements normally reach the Opposition in time for them to be studied before questions have to be asked on them. This statement did not arrive—perhaps for very good reason—until 3.15 p.m. We always understand that this can happen. It has happened many times in the past. I hope that it will be under-
1596
stood that my failure to be here earlier did not arise from any discourtesy to the Prime Minister.
As to next week's business, first will the right hon. Gentleman say what plans he has for debating the Green Paper on the Health Service, in which there is considerable interest on this side of the House, recalling that in the past the Government have provided time to debate White Papers of this importance?
Second, has the right hon. Gentleman any more information than he had last week about time for debating the Consultative Document on Industrial Relations Practices?
Third, in view of next week's business, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the fact that increasingly Opposition Supply time is being eroded by Private Bills, that the number of half days now lost and, therefore, the total time lost is running at a very much higher figure than the average for the last six years, and that some of the Private Bills result from Government decisions, such as the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board decision and others? Will the right hon. Gentleman enter into discussions and make a statement to the House and perhaps at a later stage refer the matter to the Select Committee on Procedure to ensure that Opposition rights are not eroded, because I am sure that is the last thing that he would want to do?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I appreciate the reasons for his absence, and I apologise to him and to his colleagues for the late arrival of the statement. I say to the House perfectly plainly that that is obviously the reason why the right hon. Gentleman was not able to be here earlier.
I note that the Opposition have chosen a Supply Day for a debate on the Green Paper on the National Health Service, and I am grateful for that. I equally note what the right hon. Gentleman says about past practices. No Government have been able always to find time to debate all such documents, and if they are sometimes debated in Supply time I think that that is very reasonable. I accept that the Opposition have a legitimate point in saying that they have chosen this for debate next Thursday.

1597
I cannot say exactly when a debate will be possible on the Consultative Document. We have a very heavy programme of business from now until the Summer Recess. I am delighted to enter into discussions through the usual channels about when this debate might best take place.
I agree that there has been more Private Business recently. It is important that the House should consider the full position. When hon. Members oppose a Private Bill, the sponsors do everything possible to reach a compromise with the hon. Members concerned. If they fail, the Chairman of Ways and Means is obliged to put down the opposed Private Business, and he may in fact do so whatever day he likes. In practice he does his best to consult about a date. Under Standing Orders he is required to ensure that the business is allocated proportionately between Government and Opposition time. To my certain knowledge this happened in the last Parliament, and it is indeed what happens today.
As the right hon. Gentleman requests, I am of course prepared for the Select Committee on Procedure to consider the matter, but that is not a question for me. It is a question for that Committee. It is quite clear that such a consideration is within the Committee's terms of reference and, I should have thought, relevant to its present studies of the procedure of the House.
Mr. John Mendelson: As the Leader of the House has overall responsibility for all White Papers and other Government publications, will he ensure that when the White Paper on the Common Market negotiations is published it includes, not only the accounts given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but all statements made by Professor Schumann as spokesman for the Six and all statements made by official spokesmen for the Commission in Brussels in the course of the negotiations, so that the House on this momentous occasion has at its disposal the fullest possible documentation, including such statements as that made by the spokesman of the Commission at the end of the discussions of the sugar producers that this is binding only on the Government of Great Britain?
Mr. Whitelaw: I should not like in answer to a question off the cuff to accept the hon. Gentleman's doctrine about my responsibilities. I should like to study the matter more carefully before accepting that document; I think that would be wise on my part. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the White Paper. The White Paper will set out the position absolutely fully.
Mr. Michael Foot: In view of next Wednesday's debate on steel, will the Leader of the House say when and in what form a statement of Government policy will be issued on this subject?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will make a statement on Monday. As I promised previously, following that statement I have provided time for a debate in Government time on Wednesday.
Mr. Buchan: I had intended to raise in the form of an application under Standing Order No. 9 the question of the unprecedented rise in unemployment in Scotland in the month of June. However, in the interests of time, because of the statement that is about to be made, I forbore from doing so. I therefore wonder whether we can have from the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the debate next Monday will be replied to by the Secretary of State for Scotland so that we can try to find an explanation for this incredible situation.
Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. He has made his point. However, I cannot give him the assurance which he seeks.
Mr. Mulley: Will the Leader of the House give consideration to arranging a debate on roads and road safety, in view of the great interest in this subject and in view of the important statement made by the Minister yesterday in the form of a Written Answer?
Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the practice of informing hon. Members by means of a Press statement in the Vote Office and in their post of what amounts to a Government White Paper? As this followed another statement outside the House by the Secretary of State last week about bridges, may we have an assurance that sometimes statements of public concern emanating from the

1599
Department of the Environment will be made in the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: Certainly. I want to make it clear to the House, as I did yesterday, that whatever my responsibilities may be as referred to by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), clearly I have overall responsibility for ensuring that the business of the House is conducted in the interests of the House as a whole, and this means getting the right balance as to what statements should be made orally in the House and what should be made in written form. It must always be borne in mind that there are always claims—all Governments face this—for oral statements on some subjects, and several of them every day. If we conceded all of these, it would interfere with the proper business of the House.
However, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I cannot say when such a debate would take place. Statements will be made by the Department of the Environment in the House when the matters seems, both to the Department and to me, to be appropriate for oral statement.
Mr. Alfred Morris: May I take it that the writ for the Macclesfield by-election will be issued next week? If not, why not?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman knows—[Laughter.]—I am not quite sure why everyone laughs. Is it simply because I suggested that the hon. Gentleman knows? What I think that the hon. Gentleman knows must surely be in my mind and not necessarily in the minds of hon. Members.
In reply to the hon. Gentleman's substantive point, I can merely give the simple answer that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip and not for me.
Mr. Thorpe: Reverting to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Sheffield Park (Mr. Mulley). We accept that there is often detailed information which cannot be given by means of either oral or written statement but which must be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is a little embarrassing for hon. Members to be rung up by newspapers 24 hours before Written Answers
1600
are to be given, to be given all the information which the Answers contain, and to be asked to comment on matters of which no other right hon. or hon. Member has had any notice?
Mr. Whitelaw: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. That would be wrong. I will certainly see why it is happening.
Mr. Whitehead: Bearing in mind the important statement the House is about to hear and what the Prime Minister said last week about the need for informed debate on the Common Market to take place in the country, will the Leader of the House consider authorising the broadcasting on sound radio only of the whole debate to take note of the White Paper?
Mr. Whitelaw: These are matters which the Services Committee will be perfectly prepared to consider.
Mr. James Hamilton: In view of the many deputations meeting the Prime Minister, such as that from the Scottish Trades Union Council, the shop stewards at Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and, today, Glasgow Corporation councillors and officials, may I have an assurance that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on the results of those deliberations and what he intends to do to meet the protestations made to him?
Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend naturally receives these deputations and deals with them. The question of a statement to the House is one for my right hon. Friend. I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Bob Brown: In view of the considerable anxieties in the country, particularly among members of youth committees and youth advisory committees, when may we have a debate on the future of the Youth Service?
Mr. Whitelaw: I recognise that it is an extremely important matter and one in which the whole House is extremely interested. But I cannot promise when time for such a debate can be given.
Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that there is a direct conflict between what the management of U.C.S. says was given to the Government and what the Government say they received. Each side seems to be calling the other liars. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for

1601
Trade and Industry gives us a fuller statement of his position as he sees it some time next week?
Mr. Whitelaw: Without necessarily accepting what the hon. Gentleman says, I shall certainly call to the attention of my right hon. Friend what he says. I cannot guarantee that a further statement will be necessary. I do not believe at first sight that it is.
Mr. Lomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the last time we discussed the National Health Service, on the question of increased charges, we had about 2½ hours for debate? Does not he think that it is wrong that we should finish at seven o'clock next Thursday the debate on a very important document which many hon. Members wish to discuss? Will he reconsider the matter? We on this side are fully aware that hon. Members opposite do not want the National Health Service, but that is no reason why it should not be fully debated.
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has committed himself to a number of mistakes. First, the previous debate to which he referred was on a number of Prayers. It would have been perfectly open to the Government to have those Prayers debated at the normal time for Prayers, after 10 o'clock. After discussion through the usual channels, the Government met the Opposition's request that there should be a longer debate and that it should take place earlier in the day. Therefore, it is a little unfair of the hon. Gentleman now to suggest that we did not go a long way to ensure that extra time earlier in the day was given for a debate.
As to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I acknowledged to the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition had chosen the subject for their Supply day on Thursday. I wish that it were possible not to have the opposed Private Business, but that is not a matter for me. The Opposition understood fully when they chose this subject that it could be debated for only half a day, because it was their turn to give time to opposed Private Business.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The Leader of the House has pointed out that we provided Supply time. I hope that he will agree that this is not to be regarded as
1602
a precedent. In all previous cases Government time has been provided. It is only because we knew that because of the present legislative situation it was not possible for the Government to offer time that we have done this. We knew that there would be only half a day, but we wanted a day of Government time, and we expect to have it in future.
Mr. Whitelaw: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I hope that in my original answer to him I was generous enough to recognise what he was doing. At this time of the year there are many debates that we all know we want before the House rises for the Summer Recess, and it is not only a question of legislative time but of deploying the time of the House to the best advantage. I do not regard the decision as being in any way a precedent, and I fully recognise the Government's obligations in these matters.
Mr. Douglas: We have had repeated promises from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about a statement of policy towards the shipbuilding industry. When will the statement be made? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication whether we shall have the opportunity to debate it in the House?
Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot say when the statement will be made, and therefore it would be premature for me to discuss the possibilities of debate if a statement is made. I am always prepared to discuss the possibilities of further debate through the usual channels.
Mr. Onslow: As most of the time next Friday will be spent on discussing the Housing Bill and there will be little time to discuss the Hijacking Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider referring the latter Bill to a Second Reading Committee?
Mr. Whitelaw: I hope that the House will manage to deal with both Bills next Friday. I think that this is one of those occasions when I should use the time-honoured phrase, "Let us see how we get on".
Mr. Arthur Lewis: A few weeks ago the Leader of the House said that he hoped that the Lord Boyle Committee would circulate Members. The circular letter has not yet been sent. As the

1603
Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department told me in a Written Answer yesterday that Civil Servants who in October, 1964, were on the same salary scale as M.P.s are now getting £1,900 a year more than M.P.s, can the right hon. Gentleman make a statement next week telling me where I can send the information to Lord Boyle and when I am likely to receive the circular, because I have a lot of information I should like to submit to him?
Mr. Whitelaw: My promise will be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman will very shortly receive the questionnaire. I expect that he will receive a letter from Lord Boyle at the same time telling him that if he cannot give all the information that he seeks to give in answer to a fairly lengthy questionnaire he will be able to write as much as he likes in addition to his answers to the questionnaire. Therefore, I think that all the matters he seeks to bring before the House now he will be perfectly be able to put before Lord Boyle and his Committee in writing.
Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will facilitate a debate on the industrial relations code before the Industrial Relations Bill becomes law?
Mr. Whitelaw: I have promised that I will discuss the matter through the usual channels. In view of the very heavy business, I cannot give the positive assurance that the hon. Gentleman wishes, but I have undertaken that I will certainly discuss the whole timing through the usual channels.
Mr. Urwin: In view of the continuing deep concern about high unemployment in the development areas, will the right hon. Gentleman consider allowing Government time for further debate on the Government's regional policy, if not next week, certainly in the near future? Will he instruct the Ministers responsible in such a debate to apply themselves very seriously to the Government's policy on dispersal of Government offices, especially in view of the disregard of the needs and requirements of the development areas, as expressed in the decision this week to site the V.A.T. headquarters in Southend?
Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman has got in some of his points for the
1604
debate. I cannot give an undertaking that there will be any such debate before the Houses rises for the Summer Recess, because I must point out constantly that we have a great deal of important business which the whole House wishes to transact.
Mr. Ross: Does the Leader of the House appreciate that if the rates of unemployment prevailing in Scotland were prevailing in the rest of the country there would be today over 1,100,000 unemployed in the country? That being so, if he dare not allow the Secretary of State for Scotland to speak on the subject in Monday's debate, who is to deal with it? Can the right hon. Gentleman promise that a plan will be put forward by the Government urgently to deal with this serious matter?
Mr. Whitelaw: Whilst I accept that it is a serious matter, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Government's speakers in the debate on Monday will become perfectly clear on Monday when they speak.

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Luxembourg on 21st and 22nd June. As the House will have seen, this meeting achieved a number of agreements of the very greatest importance. The House will, I hope, bear with me if the length of my statement is in relation to their importance.
The meeting first reached agreement on arrangements for British participation in the main institutions of the Community. Briefly, these arrangements would give this country a place in the institutions equal to that of France, Germany and Italy.
Certain further details, including our participation in the European Court of Justice, remain to be decided, but I think it is already clear that there will be no difficulty in making arrangements which are perfectly satisfactory to us.

1605
We also reached satisfactory agreement on the problems connected with our entry into the European Coal and Steel Community. In the first place, the Community delegation confirmed that they had no intention of calling in question the size or the legal position of the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board. We ourselves had never regarded this as a matter for the negotiations. But I was glad to have the Community's statement on the record.
For our part, we have accepted the Treaty of Paris and its implementing legislation and have undertaken to remove incompatibilities between our legislation and practices on the one hand and the Treaty of Paris on the other, either before or at any rate very soon after our accession. As regards transitional measures, it has been agreed that tariffs for steel products covered by the Treaty of Paris would move at the same rate as has been agreed for industrial products generally. We have also secured a transitional period of two years during which we might, if we wished, maintain control over the export within the enlarged Community of certain high grades of scrap.
In return for our access to the reserve funds of the Coal and Steel Community, which amount to about £90 million, we have undertaken to contribute roughly £24 million to the reserve funds of the Coal and Steel Community. This is rather less than would be called for on a strict application of the ratio of the value of our coal and steel production to theirs. The £24 million would be paid in three equal annual instalments, starting from the date of accession. The money would be banked in the United Kingdom and would be used primarily, if not wholly, in this country.
I turn now to arrangements to cover the period which would have to elapse between the signature of an accession treaty providing for our membership of the Communities and the entry into force of the treaty after the completion of processes of ratification here and in the member countries of the Community.
We have agreed with the Community that in this period joint procedures would be established to ensure that decisions taken by the institutions of the Community took due account of the interests of candidates as prospective
1606
members, and that consultations would take place before such decisions were taken. It was perfectly reasonable that the Community, on its side, should ask for the same procedures to apply to decisions to be taken by the candidate states which might affect their obligations as prospective members of the Community.
We also raised with the Community the problems of our hill farming areas. They themselves have similar problems and have adopted a variety of methods to deal with them. So they were sympathetic to the needs of farmers in our hill areas and recognised the need for appropriate action in these areas where special conditions obtain. I am, therefore, satisfied that in the event of entry we should be able to give the continuing assistance needed to maintain the incomes of farmers in the hill areas.
I now turn to New Zealand. The agreement which we reached with the Community in order to provide adequate arrangements for the very special position of New Zealand is a complex one, and I ask the House to bear with me if I set it out in some detail.
First, it was agreed that there would be special arrangements for New Zealand dairy products. Quantitative guarantees have been agreed for the first five years, during which New Zealand would be guaranteed a market for agreed quantities. Butter is, of course, the product of particular importance to New Zealand. The guaranteed quantity of butter would be reduced during the transitional period so that in the fifth year New Zealand would be guaranteed 80 per cent. of present quantities. For cheese, for which New Zealand can in any case expect to continue sales to this country at a reasonable level after our entry, the quantities guaranteed would be reduced to 20 per cent. in the fifth year. The result is that in terms of milk equivalent New Zealand would be assured of selling 71 per cent. of the present quantity even in 1977. The price level would also be guaranteed to New Zealand at the average of that enjoyed here during the years 1969–72. We estimate that this will result in prices to New Zealand substantially higher than the average of recent years.
During this first five-year period, it would be open to the Council of the Community, on which we would, of

1607
course, be fully represented in accordance with the agreement on institutions of which I have just told the House, to make adjustments as between guaranteed quantities of butter and of cheese, provided that the tonnage expressed as milk equivalent corresponded to the total quantities approved for the two products for the year in question.
During the third year after our accession, the institutions of the enlarged Community would review the butter situation in the light of the supply and demand position and trends in the major producing and consuming countries of the world, particularly the Community and in New Zealand.
Among the considerations of which account would be taken during this review would be the progress made towards an effective world agreement on milk products and the question of New Zealand's progress towards diversification of its economy and its exports. The Community has undertaken to make every effort to promote the conclusion of an international agreement on dairy products. We have, moreover, agreed that the enlarged Community would undertake to pursue a trade policy which would not frustrate New Zealand's efforts to diversify. Increased earnings by New Zealand in other markets might result. I would interject that this particular element of the agreement is of the greatest importance to New Zealand and has been appreciated by New Zealand Ministers as such.
In the light of this review, the Council of the enlarged Community would decide on suitable measures for ensuring the continuation of the derogation system for New Zealand beyond the end of 1977. This also has been particularly welcomed by New Zealand.
All this means that New Zealand even in 1977, six years hence, would be guaranteed sales of 136,000 tons of butter and at least 15,000 tons of cheese. These are minimum guarantees and she might well sell more. Since we estimate that the price which New Zealand would receive would be substantially above the level of recent years, this would give her the prospect over the five years of total export earnings at or above the level of the level of those which she has enjoyed in our market in recent years.
1608
Taken together, this represents a very satisfactory deal for New Zealand and a very considerable concession by the European Community, the implications of which will not be lost on hon. Members. In the circumstances, it is gratifying, but not surprising, that the New Zealand Prime Minister has commented:
"One of the main requirements from our point of view was that there should be comprehensive and specific criteria to govern the review of the special arrangement when the time came for it to be renewed. The review formula represents a major concession to New Zealand and a result which is highly satisfactory.
"I am confident that we can safeguard New Zealand's interests within the framework of the broad agreement reached between Britain and the Six. Moreover we shall be on a unique footing in our future dealings with the enlarged Community. No other country will enjoy the same advantages".
I now turn to arrangements for our participation in the Community's budgetary system.
Here the arrangements which we have agreed would provide for a maximum annual contribution to be paid by the United Kingdom in the first 5 years amounting to 8·64 per cent. of the Community's budget in 1973, rising to 18·92 per cent. of the Community's budget in 1977. Before the end of 1977 the Commission would calculate the contribution which the United Kingdom would have made in 1977 had we then applied in full the Community's budgetary system. On the basis of this calculation, a limitation would be applied to our contribution for a further 2 years, namely, 1978 and 1979, to ensure gradual progression to our full final contribution.
The House will want to know how the resulting contributions would compare with the estimates which I gave to hon. Members on 16th December when we made our initial proposals. The estimates of the budget of an enlarged Community have been revised downwards substantially since last year. At that time, it was thought that the budget of an enlarged Community might grow to a figure of $4,500 million in 1977. However, the butter mountain of which we heard so much at that time has melted, and agricultural prices in the Community have risen very little over the past four years, while world prices have gone on rising. The price gap, and consequently

1609
the cost of agricultural support in the Community, have accordingly fallen. The budget is now expected to grow from $3,300 million in 1973 to $3,800 million in 1977.
In these circumstances, our net contribution, for it is important to remember that we shall be receiving payments from the Community's budget, would be around £100 million pounds in 1973, rising perhaps to about £200 million pounds in 1977. These compare with £30 million for the first year under the arrangements I explained to the House on 16th December for 1973 and £140–£180 million for 1977.
These sums are important ones. But the House will recognise that the Community has made arrangements which would be very satisfactory to this country on a number of other issues during the meeting which I have just attended, particularly on New Zealand. It is fair and right that this country should, if it joins the Community, play its proper part in all aspects of Community policies and developments.
Finally, the conference discussed fisheries, and I want to make quite clear what the position is. As the House knows, we have put forward a proposition based on two essentials. First, a recognition by the Community of the need for change in the common fisheries policy and secondly a clear indication of what would be necessary as respects access to fishing grounds in particular. We have suggested exclusive fishing up to six miles from existing baselines for vessels genuinely fishing from home ports. This still remains our position.
The Six have now recognised that, in an enlarged Community, the access provisions of the common fisheries policy would have to be reconsidered and this will be the point of departure for the further discussions which will be necessary. It has been agreed that those discussions should be held with the Community at Ministerial level at a meeting in the week beginning 12th July, and that, at our request, the other applicant countries should also be invited in view of the fact that, as the House is well aware, fisheries is also a matter of great importance to them. I know that the House places great emphasis on a firm agreement on limits before reaching a decision, and that
1610
is why I have asked for this early meeting. I will then report further to the House.
I would like to pay a particular tribute to the understanding and co-operation with which the Community delegation dealt with these matters and to add a special word of appreciation to the rôle which the Commission played during what were arduous, but what I hope the House will agree, successful negotiations.
There is still plenty of work to be done. We have to reach agreement with the Community on transitional arrangements for our movement to Community policies regarding capital movements, on the European Investment Bank and on the safeguarding of employment in Northern Ireland, on the position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and of course on fisheries.
But the agreements reached in Luxembourg mean that we have now broken the back of the negotiations. We have been able to progress so far because the Community has demonstrated its political will to see the Community enlarged and to have Britain in as a full member with it.
Mr. Harold Lever: Altogether without prejudice to the judgment of hon. Members of the outcome of the negotiations, I think that we would want to recognise the arduous effort and work put in by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his team—
Mr. Skinner: Rubbish.
Mr. Russell Kerr: Speak for yourself.
Mr. Lever: I entirely reserve the right of all hon. Members to decide whether champagne or some less agreeable liquid is appropriate.
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman when he proposes to let the House have the White Paper and whether, in drawing up this White Paper, he will see that it is in plain English with a linguistic balance directed towards informing this House and the public fully of the meaning and consequences of the terms of entry?
Could he tell the House something more about New Zealand? We have read reported statements of some concern in New Zealand about the fixing of the price levels. I am anxious that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should tell the

1611
House why this particular formula for determining price levels was selected. As to fisheries, will he give some indication of when he hopes the loose ends which plainly exist will be tied up? Can he say whether he expects to be able to announce in good time before any decision is taken rather firmer proposals of what has been agreed here?
Finally, may I return to my plea that the House may be told in a clear manner what it is that the Prime Minister has agreed and what it is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has agreed about sterling. It seems to be unfortunate that an area of fundamental importance to this country should require illumination, at the moment almost exclusively provided in weekly magazines, rather than from the Prime Minister or the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Could we have a clear statement, either in the White Paper or in some other way, about the detail of the sterling rôle which has been agreed?
Mr. Rippon: I much appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman had to say by way of introduction. As to the White Paper, I cannot give a precise date of publication. Obviously it will be for the convenience of the House that it should be made available as quickly as possible. It is a document which will cover grave and weighty matters, and I am sure that every effort will be made to see that it sets out the implications of the agreements reached and the nature of the terms and the full consequences of them.
Dealing first with the agreement about New Zealand, I think I can fairly say that at the end of two days of arduous negotiation there was only one matter remaining which was of real concern to New Zealand. Throughout the negotiations, I remained in the closest possible contact with the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Jack Marshall. Indeed, there were long periods of time when we were together inside the conference building. The anxiety about price related to the minimum guarantee spread over a period of years. It is normal in agreements of this type generally to take a representative period of years. The original proposal of the Community was that we should take 1968–69, 1969–70, and 1971–72. In the early years, the price was much lower than it is now, so clearly
1612
it is in New Zealand's interest to take the highest level. We are referring to world prices having risen, which is one of the reasons why the shape of the Community budget has changed.
Because of the rise in prices, it is obviously in New Zealand's interests to take the period between 1970–72 rather than 1968–69. We struck out 1968. We could not persuade the Community to strike out 1969. It could be argued that this was at that stage a matter which concerned only the United Kingdom, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the housewife. The Community argued that this was a special arrangement, a special trading agreement of a sort not normally concluded with third countries, carrying the matter forward for a long period of time and that it would create a terrible precedent if we took only one real year and two hypothetical years, especially when we were talking of a time when New Zealand prices were rather higher than had been the average in the past three years.
If I might put it this way, because I appreciate that it is a matter of great concern, in 1970–71 New Zealand butter earnings were £52 million. Under the arrangements we have made in 1973 it has a minimum guarantee of £62 million, in 1974 the figure is £60 million and in 1975 it is £57 million. Of course, 1975 is the year of the review, and we worked very hard to get an arrangement whereby the review should come in the third year, when New Zealand will be guaranteed 88 per cent. of her butter exports and 60 per cent. of her cheese exports. Of course, she can sell more. If the world price rises she can get more, but if the world price falls she still has a minimum ceiling.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: While reechoing, perhaps a trifle more emphatically, the congratulations of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) to my right hon. and learned Friend on his immensely strenuous and skilful work in these complex negotiations, may I ask him, in view of his considerable efforts on behalf of New Zealand, whether he can clarify one point in respect of the arrangements relating to that country? We all hope that at the end of the five-year transitional period a new agreement will be

1613
arrived at, but in the event of a failure by the Community to agree as to the future, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain what the position would then be? Would it simply continue indefinitely on the fifth year basis until a further agreement were made, or would all guaranteed entry come to a sudden halt?
Mr. Rippon: There would be no question of guaranteed entry coming to a sudden halt. The whole purpose of the arrangement we have made is to ensure that there will be continuity. The agreement refers to what will happen in the first five years and to the need in the third year to detail the arrangements for the continuing derogation. At that stage we shall have to determine the matter according to the criteria which we have set out in so much detail. I do not think that there is any likelihood of difficulty in that regard.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) for not having dealt with his two further questions—I was so concerned about New Zealand, about which I know the House feels deeply. He asked about the loose ends and, in particular, fisheries. One reason why I pressed for an early meeting on 12th July was to be able to give the House as soon as possible details about this matter which concerns so many people inside and outside the House. I cannot say exactly what the time-table will be on the other matters, but, of course, we have to clear them up before there is any question of ratification. Some of the details in relation to secondary legislation and other matters will carry over into the autumn, but certainly the House will have the full details of every aspect of the negotiations before any vote is taken.
I am conscious that I manifestly failed to satisfy the House on the last occasion of the adequacy of the arrangements which we have made for sterling. My difficulty is that sterling is not part of the negotiations, except in so far as the harmonisation of capital movements is concerned. We agreed that this would be a matter for discussion. I stated the British position in the negotiating conference and, after the French Minister had said that he accepted it, it was agreeable to the Community as a whole. I
1614
do not think I can add anything to the statement I made in Brussels. Although my explanation may have been inadequate, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was by accident and not by design.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has explained what we have decided on sterling. As I told the House on the last occasion, we have not entered into any specific commitments in this matter. Whatever is done will be done with good sense, in an orderly way and having regard to the various conditions which have been elaborated—the need to maintain international monetary liquidity, the need to ensure that there is no undue burden on our balance of payments, and the need to protect the interests of existing sterling holders.
Mr. Thorpe: May I, first, congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his advisers on their skilful work to date and welcome the success to date in progressing the welcome application made by the previous Government? Will the Chancellor of the Duchy say when he expects the outstanding matters to be resolved? Secondly, accepting the important matters that still have to be resolved, does he agree that the main factors involved are now sufficiently clear that, leaving aside those who do not want to get nearer to the Continent than paddling off Ramsgate and who will, therefore, reject any terms which the right hon. and learned Gentleman may bring back, the time has now come to take the political and economic case to the people of this country and to convince them that the future of this country does not rest with those who believe in isolation but in a larger and united Europe?
Mr. Rippon: To deal first with the matters still to be dealt with in the negotiations, as I said, we shall be considering specially on 12th July the problem of fisheries. We have said that we want to deal in particular with the whole question of access and conservation. Some of the other matters in relation to fisheries, such as marketing arrangements, which are very complex and have to be considered with the other applicants, may take a little longer. We may have another Ministerial meeting at the end of July—that is not entirely precluded. The

1615
deputies will go on meeting and progress is being made as rapidly as possible.
I have said that I believe we have broken the back of the negotiations because it is now possible to set before the House and the country a much clearer balance sheet. Obviously, in the negotiations we have been dealing simply with the burdens in relation to the financial contribution and the difficult issues where we had to have special arrangements for ourselves, for third countries, the Commonwealth and others. This has tended to focus attention on only one side of the picture. Now we are able to appreciate very much more the advantages which will accrue to us. I share the right hon. Gentleman's view of what a satisfactory conclusion to these negotiations and the enlargement of the Community would mean, not only to Europe but to this country, the Commonwealth and the whole free world.
Sir R. Turton: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, if at the end of the transitional period Britain wants to exempt from Community preference quantities of Commonwealth sugar or New Zealand butter and the other members do not agree, will one country, for example, France, have the power of veto so that we cannot do it?
Mr. Rippon: As I have indicated before, the position is rather different in the context of sugar and New Zealand. The developing countries of the Commonwealth who are parties to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement have been offered the broad protection of whatever form of association or trading agreement they may choose to negotiate. Therefore, if we fail to reach any agreement at all on sugar, which is highly improbable, the existing arrangements would continue. The assurance of continuity in general terms for New Zealand has been built into the agreement we have reached with reference to the first five years and the continuing arrangements, and we have provided for a review in 1975 as to the means of doing it in relation to all the criteria which we have agreed between ourselves, the Community and New Zealand. It is not possible to foresee now exactly what the provision would be in terms of quantities and price. We do not know what world market and Com-
1616
munity market conditions might be prevailing then. It is provided that after the end of the first transitional period, in 1978, the guarantee should relate to butter. It may still relate to a higher figure than the one we have put in for 1977, because in terms of milk equivalent at 71 per cent. it would be 85 per cent. of the current figure and not the present 80 per cent. What the precise figure would be, I cannot say.
In regard to the arrangements made by the Community for determining these matters, those concerned about British sovereignty have had an interest in saying that matters affecting the vital interests of any country should be the subject of a veto. I think it inconceivable that this would be applied in the case of New Zealand. I imagine that what would happen is that the Community would do with this matter what it does with all problems, and that is to sit down and work out what is the right trade agreement in the precise circumstances of the third year of review.
Mr. Jay: In the case of New Zealand, do not these arrangements amount to this: that in the first five years there will be a 30 per cent. reduction in guaranteed supplies of dairy products, and that after that period there is no firm quantitative guarantee whatever?
Mr. Rippon: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, originally in 1967 no arrangement was made about cheese, but we felt it right—and certainly it helps—to have some guarantee on cheese, albeit that it is phasing out. At the time when the review takes place in 1975, the quantities would be 88 per cent. of butter and 60 per cent. of cheese. These will decrease, but the position of butter will clearly need to be considered again in 1975 in terms of the quantity that will be required. But there is no guarantee of a particular quantity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or for that matter of a particular price, because that falls for negotiation at that time.
Mr. John Mendelson: Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman not say so in the first place?
Mr. Rippon: I have made it perfectly clear, or I have tried to do so, that the quantity and price of butter in the period after 1977 will fall to be re-negotiated in 1975, according to the criteria of the

1617
review which we have established. In the light of the Community's agreement that we are talking about only the first five years and that in 1975 we shall be discussing the measures necessary to continue the derogation, manifestly it would be a breach of that agreement if anybody were to say at that time, "Nothing after 1977".
Mr. Raphael Tuck: France said so.
Mr. Rippon: France has said no such thing. We have reached a fair and honourable agreement with the Community. One of the things that arose from these negotiations was that the Europeans said they wanted to put us to the test of whether we are good Europeans. We have passed that test.
Mr. Orme: Ask France about the period between 1939 and 1945.
Mr. Rippon: I did not put a date on it. I was going to add that we had a test to put to the Community as to whether we could negotiate fair and reasonable terms not just for ourselves but for the Commonwealth. The Community has shown that it is willing to do so.
Mr. Blaker: Is not the New Zealand Government rather pleased with the arrangement my right hon. and learned Friend has made? Would he repeat to the House some of the remarks which have been made by New Zealand Ministers?
Mr. Rippon: I think it is fair to say that the New Zealand Government have welcomed these arrangements. They probably represent one of the best trade arrangements with a third country which have ever been negotiated. Understandably, there was reservation on the part of New Zealand from the point of view of price. New Zealand must in future years reserve its position as to what is the highest minimum price it can negotiate. We think that we have reached a fair arrangement at this time.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Could I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to recall the White Paper of February 1970 on estimated costs and benefits, in which there was a wide spread of the estimates of cost because of assumptions which could not then have been clarified? Since many of these matters have been clarified partly by negotiation and partly
1618
by the actions of the Six, is he now able to say whether he will be in a position to get a narrower range or a single figure? If he cannot give the figure this afternoon, will he say whether such an estimate is made in the forthcoming White Paper?
Secondly, with regard to New Zealand, it is clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House would still like more clarification arising from the question put by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). Although the whole House recognises that New Zealand has obtained the best terms ever granted by the Six to any third country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will surely realise that so far as Britain is concerned New Zealand has never been regarded as a third country. Would he recall that on Monday, in an obviously rough set of exchanges, the French were heard to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand the Common Market if he wanted to continue permanent arrangements with New Zealand? Have we the right to permanent arrangements with New Zealand if we want them?
Mr. Rippon: Certain comments were made in the course of negotiations on and off the record, but it is clear that the original text of the Community, which was unacceptable to us, has been drastically changed. It is now in a form which is acceptable to us and acceptable to New Zealand, subject only to the question of price. Of course New Zealand is not for us a third country, and we have always had the closest possible trading arrangements with New Zealand. The fact is that under this agreement New Zealand's earnings will be at a far higher average rate than when it was dealing directly with us. In regard to butter, by 1975 minimum earnings would be £57 million, compared with £52 million in 1970–71; and even in 1977, when the figure is down to a minimum of 80 per cent., the figure will be £51 million. We base these quotas on the minimum entitlement of New Zealand in this market, and in recent years that has been higher than the figure of exports to New Zealand. I hope that helps to explain the position to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Harold Wilson: I do not want to press the right hon. and learned Gentleman unduly, but is he aware that the

1619
answers he has given relate entirely to the next three years? I was asking about arrangements after 1977. He did not in any way begin to answer the question I put to him on that period. It is only fair that I should not press him today for an answer if it is difficult, but I hope that he will undertake to see that the points made by a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including myself, are fully answered in the White Paper when it is presented to the House.
Mr. Rippon: Every trading agreement of this kind needs to be renegotiated at a certain point in regard to quantities and price levels. This we have agreed to do. But the principle of continuity is built into the agreement. There will have to be a general agreement between all the parties, but whether they are problems which concern us or any other country or New Zealand, they will be dealt with in exactly the same manner as similar problems are dealt with within the Community as a whole. There is a similarity of treatment in the final analysis in the review procedure as arises in every other case.
To come back to the first question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, of course the 1970 White Paper in the circumstances of that time gave a broad range of possibilities. It will be possible in the forthcoming White Paper to narrow the range. I do not know that one can ever keep to absolutely precise figures in regard to a period so far ahead as 1977, 1978 or even 1980, because the size and shape of the budget will change. When we are in the Community we will have an interest to some extent in changing the size and shape of the budget so that we shall have more to spend on regional and industrial policies which are of interest to us. But within that limitation, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will give in the White Paper as much information as humanly possible both on figures and the effect on balance of payments over the whole range of matters on which we have been negotiating.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, in spite of his own hard and devoted work, the numerous and prior concessions on matters of major importance have made these negotiations only of marginal
1620
effect? While the plaudits of the Marketeers still ring in my right hon. and learned Friend's ears, will he recall the wise and prophetic words of Sir Robert Walpole, "They are ringing their bells now; soon, they will be wringing their hands"?
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that my right hon. and learned Friend has deep convictions on this matter and that we do not always share the same view about some of the problems. But it is not right to say that there have been numerous and prior concessions. It has not been fully appreciated, though I can say so more firmly now that I have negotiated our contribution to the budget, how many concessions have been made by the Community to us. If I may cite one example, there are the ararngements that we made for a whole range of commodities which we felt were important to British industry and might be at risk if we entered the Community. There are matters of great concern to Canada, Australia and other countries. As a result of our agreements, well over 90 per cent. of all these commodities which come into the country duty-free will continue to come in duty-free after enlargement. That is a substantial concession to our point of view. We have negotiated not only this for New Zealand, but an agreement for all the developing countries of the Commonwealth. We have made, commodity by commodity, in the case of newsprint, plywood, aluminium, lead and bullion, arrangements which affect particular members of the Commonwealth in relation to industrial products, and we have built into the agreement a total comprehensive range of protections during the transitional arrangement as regards any disruption which might take in trade between us and any third country, including Canada, Australia and the developing Commonwealth. We have an agreement which covers not only sugar, bacon, butter, fruit and vegetables, but one which covers every aspect of trade which might be disrupted as a result of our joining the Community.
Sir G. de Freitas: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, as one who represents a steel constituency, I am pleased that he has been able to make the categorical statement that the British Steel Corporation will be left alone? Secondly, does the right hon. and learned

1621
Gentleman realise that, as one who is prepared to accept the new terms, so far as I can understand them, I should welcome more details in the White Paper about how the New Zealand transitional arrangements can be made permanent—the right hon. and learned Gentleman's phrase was "the continuation of the system after 1977".
Mr. Rippon: I appreciate that when one reads a long and detailed statement of this kind it is difficult for anyone to follow all the criteria for the review. They will be set out in the White Paper. They will emphasise that these are arrangements for the first five years, and that measures will be taken to ensure continuity. There is an element of doubt, as there must be, about the nature of the exact agreement concluded in 1975, in the review year. We shall try to set out all these matters as fully as possible.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I add my congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the success of the negotiations and ask him, following his penultimate reply, whether he is proposing any special machinery at this stage to help our Commonwealth friends, for whom he has negotiated so much under these arrangements, so that they may take full advantage of them?
Mr. Rippon: As regards the offer of association for the developing countries of the Commonwealth—Africa, the Caribbean, Mauritius, Fiji, Samoa and Tonga—the details of negotiation are for them. They will have a choice as to which form of association or trade agreement they prefer. Therefore, they will deal directly with the Community. Naturally, we shall bs glad to do anything that we can do to help in any matter of concern to them.
Sir Myer Galpern: In the event of Great Britain joining the Community, what will be the relationship between the Community and the Isle of Man, the Island of Jersey and the other Channel Islands, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman ensure that any terms and conditions negotiated on their behalf are fully acceptable to them?
Mr. Rippon: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I have been in touch with representatives of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We have proposed to the Community that
1622
what would be most suitable in their case would be a form of association. We have not yet discussed the details, but we want to conclude arrangements which are satisfactory to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Mr. Wingfield Digby: I wish to ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question about the Community budget. Does he anticipate that as the years go by the returns to this country from the Community budget will increase?
Mr. Rippon: I think so. What is important to us is not simply the gross contribution that we make but the net contribution that we make after allowing for receipts. We have taken a fairly conservative view of receipts, as we must while a large proportion of the budget is devoted to agriculture and where our likely receipts are not high in the early years. But they tend to rise under the present budgetary arrangements. We envisage that the size and shape of the budget will change, and this will determine the position in the later years. Certainly we have a direct interest in ensuring that a proper proportion of the budget goes to regional industrial policies, which are of great importance to us and will be of great benefit to the regions in this country.
Mr. Taverne: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that most of those who genuinely wanted the negotiations to succeed will regard the outcome as satisfactory and acceptable—[Interruption.]—that is, as opposed to those who did not wish them to succeed? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman make urgent representations to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the policy for entry will not command wider acceptance unless he reverses the policies to deal with the recession?
Mr. Rippon: Naturally, I accept the first part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's representations. However, I cannot subscribe to the second part. That is not a matter for me. I believe that, as one right hon. Gentleman said, it has been well understood by those who have supported the application—that is to say, if fair terms can be achieved—that Britain's entry would mean a great contribution to the growth of our economy and towards solving the problems which

1623
give so much concern to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I, too, offer congratulations to my right hon. and learned Friend on the outcome of the negotiations, even though it is clear that for New Zealand they are 4 per cent. better than disastrous. May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend for an assurance that this very important matter of sterling will be dealt with in the White Paper, especially as there will have to be a further debate on capital movements, which are important to this whole consideration? Will my right hon. and learned Friend also assure the House that, when the White Paper discussing the broad issues of this country's interests is published, the prospects for growth and of employment as a result of entering the Market will be made clear to the people?
Mr. Rippon: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in his third point. This is of great importance. As for his first point about New Zealand, if he reads what I have said in my statement—and it will be set out in the White Paper—I am sure that he will agree that it is an agreement that this House can accept. After all, the New Zealand Government regard it as satisfactory. As for sterling, that only arose in the negotiations in the context of the exchange of statements that we had in Brussels. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deal with the additional implications. It will be one of the matters which will be covered in the White Paper.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: In his statement the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that agreement had been reached in order to preserve the labour position in Northern Ireland. Will he tell us whether negotiations were conducted concerning Wales and Scotland and other regions of acute economic difficulty and whether he considers that it would be fair, reasonable and necessary to protect these areas in the same way.
Mr. Rippon: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood. We have not yet reached agreement about Northern Ireland. I listed that as a matter still to be settled, but we have put forward proposals which refer to the obligation
1624
of continuing the Northern Ireland Employment Act.
Concerning the United Kingdom generally, successive Governments have accepted the principle of the free movement of labour. I do not think that any particular difficulties will arise. The areas of high unemployment will benefit from the growth of industry and the expansion of the market.
Mr. Tapsell: Is it a matter of agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Six that if we enter the European Economic Community we shall be entering an organisation which, in its political form, will, in the foreseeable future, be confederal and not federal?
Mr. Rippon: I believe that the President of the French Republic was right when he said that at this stage of the development of a united Europe talk of confederation or federation was unrealistic. We shall move forward step by step, with realism, harmonising our policies, and in that way we shall see how the Community develops. What it ultimately develops into is not a matter about which we can take a decision today. People vary in their ideas about how fast progress should be. All these matters will be fully within our control when we are inside the Community. A constitutional change of that kind could not take place without the unanimous agreement of all the Members of the Community.
Mr. Mackintosh: In view of the clear help that it has been to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand in Brussels or in Luxembourg to discuss technical difficulties in putting the New Zealand case and ultimately giving his approval to the agreement reached, would it not similarly be a good idea to take a representative group of the leaders of the fishing industry for the subsequent negotiations? This is somewhat similar in the sense that not only is it a hard matter of fact but a matter of deep inbuilt fears, and to have some of the fishermen there to advise him would be of assistance. It would also prevent the outbreak of a lot of people more keen on fishermen than the fishermen themselves.
Mr. Rippon: I think that many hon. Members have taken the last point. On

1625
the substantive suggestion, we must remember that these are intergovernmental negotiations. Grave problems would arise if representatives not only of our industries but of all the industries and communities of the Community and other applicants were present in that building at the same time. It is difficult enough as it is to reach total agreement.
The hon. Gentleman said that the agreement which we had reached was approved by the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is important not to commit him in that way. Both he and his Prime Minister have made a number of statements which are on record. I am not entitled to improve or alter them in any way. I quoted what the New Zealand Prime Minister said. Many right hon. and hon. Members will have noted what the New Zealand Prime Minister said about the agreement in general. He reserved his position on the question of price. He would have liked to see a higher minimum price, and that must be understood.
Mr. Braine: My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the arrangements for Commonwealth commodities. He suggested that the Community had made considerable concessions in this regard. In that context he did not speak of Commonwealth exports of manufactured goods, which are vital to the developing countries. Is he satisfied that, as a result of entry, there will be no adverse effect upon such exports from such countries? Is he also satisfied that the generalised preference arrangements which the Community is introducing on 1st July will be fair to countries like India?
Mr. Rippon: We do not see any difficulties concerning exports of manufactured goods. On the contrary, I think that the Commonwealth will find great advantages in the associations which are being created. It is worth bearing in mind that whereas members of the Community have been greatly increasing their trade with each other, they have also been expanding their trade with the rest of the world, and notably with the Commonwealth. I think that we want to be part of that expansion, too.
The Community has adopted a certain view about generalised preferences and, as we would wish, has included the developing countries of the Common-
1626
wealth in this offer. I am sure that this will be found to be satisfactory. My hon. Friend will remember that we pressed the Community, and got agreement, to include Hong Kong among the notable beneficiaries of the new proposals.
Mr. Peter Shore: Noting how quickly the right hon. and learned Gentleman's so-called guarantees crumble in the face of questions, is it not clear that from the beginning to the end of the negotiations he and his colleagues have been outwitted, out-generalled and out-faced? Will he confirm that in the proposals which he has accepted for the financial contribution, in the transitional period alone, Britain is to pay across the balance of payments no less than £1,100 million, which is £400 million more than he put forward and assured the House only three months ago was a fair and equitable contribution?
Mr. Rippon Mr. Rippon rose—
Mr. Shore: The love-in has to stop some time. Finally, is it not clear that on this occasion, as on others, he has reached agreement only by abandoning essential British and Commonwealth interests?
Mr. Rippon: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. He is still thinking in terms of the figures which appeared in the White Paper published by the Government of which he was a member. I assure him that we have carried on these negotiations on exactly the basis—give or take a point or two—which the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues initiated in 1967.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm two points? The first is that he referred throughout to the minimum returns for New Zealand and said that therefore, during the period both of transition and thereafter, New Zealand could expect to sell a good deal more than is in the agreement because of the need for more butter which will arise as the Community becomes a net importer of butter. Secondly, will he confirm that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides would very much like someone to go as far as to guarantee their incomes at least until 1977?
Mr. Rippon: I hope that in my previous answer I made it clear that the £1,100 million, which was the upper range of the previous Government's White Paper, is superseded and that the details will be set out in the White Paper.
Certainly these are minimum quantities and minimum prices for New Zealand. That is the floor. If, for example, there is a world shortage of butter, then New Zealand could take advantage of meeting that shortage. There was an occasion in the past year when the Community wanted New Zealand butter. This may continue and they may buy it. We are talking of the minimum arrangements for the United Kingdom market. If, on the contrary, there was a surplus, again New Zealand has the minimum and perhaps a higher price than the world price might be. These are minimum arrangements. We hope that there will be opportunities for New Zealand to sell more than these minimum quantities. This also applies to cheese, which was not included in the proposals made by the last Government in 1967.
The position has changed since then, so it is right to have some guarantee, but it is only a minimum. We envisage that the sale of large quantities of New Zealand cheese will continue in this and other markets. There is also the important agreement that we have reached, whereby the Community has undertaken not to frustrate New Zealand's efforts to find other markets, that is to say, to ensure that where there is a surplus in the Community, we would not seek to sell that surplus in any way that was detrimental to New Zealand's efforts to sell in other markets. That is very important.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: This will have to be the last supplementary question. Mr. Orme.
Mr. Orme: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that although my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) congratulated him on what he had achieved, many of us on this side of the House believe that the terms that he has brought back are an absolute disaster, and that the love-in that we have seen in the House this afternoon will not exist when they are known to the British people?
1628
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the British people that during the next five years they will have to pay out millions of pounds extra for New Zealand products which now enjoy Commonwealth preference?
Hon. Members: Too long.
Mr. Orme: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House and the country when the benefits are supposed to start to flow? There are to be five years of penalties. When will the benefits begin?
Mr. Rippon: They can start only when we join the Community, and I think that they will start then, and be manifest at a very early date. Wise people have said that when one considers the balance sheet of joining the Community or not, and one looks at the cost, it is important to consider the cost of the lost opportunities if we fail to join. The opportunities that will be afforded to British industry if we join the Community are tremendously important to everyone who works and earns his living in British industry. When we begin to harmonise our policies with those of the Community, we must bear in mind that although there may be some problems of harmonisation of food prices, wages, social benefits and pensions in the community, as a result of the growth that those countries have generated, have risen considerably above our own levels. I hope that when the hon. Gentleman puts to his constituents and others some of the difficulties, he will not forget to emphasise the enormous opportunities.
When we talk about the price of butter, let us not confuse it with our sentiment for New Zealand. If people really are concerned that New Zealand should prosper, and that her farmers should get a fair deal, they must not complain if those farmers get a higher price for what they produce.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY, 12th JULY
Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. Tom Boardman

Mr. Michael Cocks

Mr. Clinton Davis

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That at this day's Silting the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour; and that, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)), the Motions relating to Agriculture (S.I., 1971, Nos. 854 to 857, 632 and 473) may be proceeded with for a period of one and a half hours after the proceedings on the Licensing (Abolition of State Management) Bill have been disposed of, or until half-past Eleven o'clock, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Monro.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  LICENSING (ABOLITION OF STATE MANAGEMENT) BILL
    Clause 2

      DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY IN ENGLAND HELD BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF STATE MANAGEMENT
      5.4 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 3, line 3, leave out subsection (9).
      I am sure that the fact that this Amendment is on the Order Paper gives enormous pleasure to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) because, in Committee, he moved an Amendment similar to Amendment No. 21 on the Order Paper, and I think that it might be for the convenience of the House if that Amendment to delete subsection (7) of Clause 3 were considered with the one that I have moved.
      In Committee the right hon. Gentleman said that Clause 2(9) and Clause 3(7) were unnecessary. We spent some time searching for something on which we could agree with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that on this matter we have been able to reach agreement with him. In fact, we have gone further than the right hon. Gentleman proposed. He sought to amend only Clause 3. We are seeking to amend that Clause and this one. It gives me great pleasure to carry out the undertaking that I gave in Committee, and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: I am almost breathless over what has happened. I am sure that there must have been five or six Cabinet meetings before this change was agreed to. If the hon. Gentleman had been putting our case, many more meetings would have been necessary.
      Since my translation from that side of the House to this, I have returned to my honorary presidency of the society for the improvement of Statutes and, indeed, for the protection of the traditions of Scotland.
      The Amendment seeks to delete the subsection which says:
      "This section does not apply to Scotland."
      As if it ever could The title of the Clause is
      "Disposal of property in England … "
      I do not think that that has much relevance to Scotland. What is more, one sees in subsection (1) a reference to the Act of 1964—I have here a copy of that celebrated Act—and it says that it does not apply to Scotland. How many times must we put up with this kind of thing?
      I know that draftsmen are hidebound by tradition and take the view that because something has been done in a certain way it must continue to be done in that way, and not a word must be altered. This provision might have escaped our eye, and we might not have been quite so offended, if the words in the two subsections were similar. Subsection (9) says:
      "This section does not apply to Scotland",
      but Clause 3 (7) says:
      "This section applies to Scotland only."
      In that part of the Bill dealing with Scotland, the relevant subsection says:
      "This section applies to Scotland only."
      If the Government wanted to be consistent, they should have said
      "This section does not apply to England."
      The Clause refers to licensing justices and many other things which bear no relation to Scottish law. It is about time that the breakthrough was made. I congratulate the Government on this momentous decision. It must have been as important and difficult to achieve this Amendment as it was for the Under-Secretary to achieve anything in the North-East of Britain where these negotiations have taken place.
      But we should not look a gift horse in the mouth and I will ask my hon. Friends to accept the Amendments in the spirit in which they are offered. I wish that we could have had something more important, but we have not lost hope. There are more important Amendments to come. I am sure that, now that he has been persuaded to look kindly on this suggestion, the hon. Gentleman will be able to do good later on.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: By the length of time he took and the grudging way in
      1632
      which he accepted the Amendment, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) almost persuaded me to withdraw it. The words in the Bill do no harm. There will probably be other occasions—I can remember a similar one in the past—when I will be chided for not making things absolutely clear in Bills. The right hon. Gentleman now has three rôles in his honorary presidency of the society he mentioned—first to pick out unnecessary words, second to scarify me and, third, to filibuster, even when generosity is offered him.
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
      House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY IN SCOTLAND HELD BY SECRETARY OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF STATE MANAGEMENT
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 5 after 'him', insert 'in the Gretna district'.
      It would be not only convenient but helpful, in that it would make my meaning clear, if we discussed at the same time Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 7, after 'purposes', insert
      'and all property held by him in the Cromarty Firth State Management district for the purposes of Part V of the Act of 1959 shall be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board '.
      The purpose of this Amendment is to leave alone, to suffer the Government's actions, that part of the State management district in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro)—that is the Gretna area. But in the Cromarty Firth State management area the properties, hotels and public houses should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
      5.15 p.m.
      For the purposes of greater accuracy, I produce here a document published by the Board not long ago which has a foreword signed by the Secretary of State. The first question is whether this body should embark on this kind of venture of taking over property which is important

      1633
      for tourism, and developing and running. Has it the necessary executive expertise?
      It is interesting to point out that the Board was established
      "To enable the Highlands and Islands to play a more effective part in the economic and social development of the nation. To this end, the Board is to concert, promote, assist or undertake measures for the economic or social development of the seven Highland counties."
      That includes Ross and Cromarty.
      Unprecedented powers were given by the House. I was Secretary of State at the time. There was not one vote against it. This document says:
      "To help it realise its objectives, the Board has been given finance and a wide range of powers. It has its own grants and loans scheme, the first in the United Kingdom administered by a regional organisation. The power to take equity has been added to the range of … incentives … This allows the Board to enter into partnership with commercial and industrial concerns and to broaden the capital structure of a company … The Board also provides a range of advisory and other services; it is equipped to provide advice on management, accountancy, production, plant layout, marketing and publicity. The Board has positive powers to clear land, erect buildings, carry on businesses and commission investigations and surveys."
      So if the Secretary of State wants to get rid of these properties because the State should not be in the liquor trade, in the Cromarty Firth, his solution is easy, obvious and desirable—to hand it over to this Board which has been given a special function, of which a considerable part deals with tourism.
      The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) will confirm that, since its establishment in November, 1965, the Board has created a special place for itself in the Highlands. In Ross-shire in 1965–69, it has sponsored or assisted 259 projects. The Board has invested about £1¼ million and assisted many projects related to tourism and the sort of enterprises that have been badly needed in this part of the country.
      We should not forget that hotels have been built with the assistance of the Government. One has been opened in Craignure on the Island of Mull and another will shortly be opened on the Island of Barra. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that another is to be opened on Shetland, but that may be a privately owned one and I do not want to be led astray.
      1634
      Is it not fitting that the public houses and establishments about which we are speaking should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board? After all, anybody who buys them will no doubt go to the Board and seek support for them. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty has no desire to see the brewers come into this area, although they are already there, as he will know from the lesson we tried to give him in Committee about the findings of the Monopolies Commission.
      The brewers own 86 per cent. of the public houses in England and Wales and they are now making inroads into the outlets in Scotland. Neither the hon. Gentleman nor I want that to happen, and to protect the position in Scotland in general, and in his area in particular, my solution might be the answer. Have the Government discussed my proposal with the local advisory committee or the Board?
      This is a developing area. The Invergordon and Cromarty Firth area was selected during the first war as an experimental growth point, and it was not purely about this part of the country and the problem of drink that Lloyd George said in 1916 that drink was doing more damage to the war effort than all the German submarines put together. People who were alien to the district crowded in. It was an experiment which worked and everybody recognises that it has been a success.
      Everything went well until about 1960, when the lairds got busy and suggested that this State business should be handed over to private enterprise—and by that they meant the brewers. Although hon. Gentlemen opposite hope that local people will come into this business, the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty fears that eventually because brewers' money will be involved, the brewers will take a more direct interest. My suggestion may be a way out for the Minister and the Government.
      We should not forget that of the many people who crowd into this area, some are there for only a time. The aluminium smelter is coming into production and the area is changing. It will become, I hope increasingly, a sort of industrial hub of this part of Scotland. It is all the more important that this experiment

      1635
      should continue, perhaps in a new form, and by handing it over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board a satisfactory solution may be achieved, because the Board has been commissioned by all parties in this House to carry out this sort of task.
      In the short time the Board has been in existence, it has achieved an incredible amount. The number of applications approved for grants and loans from, among other things, manufacturing industry, tourism, catering, transport, fisheries, and agriculture and horticulture totalled 1,500 up to November, 1970, so that another six months' of work must be added to that total. Loans and grants worth about £7½ million have been given.
      Since the State is changing the area, it is right that this body, which is doing so much for the area, should be entrusted with the management of these properties and continue with an experiment which has proved successful. Certain hotels and public houses in this vicinity came under my control for a while. It staggers me to think that people are suggesting that they should not continue to be involved with the State. These properties were run by a special department of the Scottish Office, and not many civil ser-cants were involved, and then by the agency. A profit has been made in this area and it is clear that while the Government are prepared to destroy Upper Clyde Shipbuilders because they are making a loss, they are only too ready to hand to their friends an enterprise which is making a profit.
      The prices charged in these hotels and public houses bear favourable comparison with the prices in similar establishments in Scotland. Most people in the area were content to leave things as they were. They wanted to see expansion in the locality. When I became Secretary of State I found that the people who had hitherto been holding up expansion were the Treasury, under a Tory Government, because of increasing pressure on the Tories to take the very step that is now being proposed, though in the past the Home Secretary has prevented it from happening.
      If my words are not believed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the silent senator, the hon. Member for Dumfries,
      1636
      let them read the comments of Lord Drumalbyn in another place. They will see that the Scottish Tories are anxious to destroy this form of State management yet in the past Home Secretaries have restrained them. It has been a case of the lairds and the lackeys, and the Tories in Scotland have always been the lairds.
      The Secretary of State leads the Scottish Tory Party in this House, but he leads only a few hon. Members. We have 43 of the 71 Scottish seats. It is clear that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no mandate to do anything in Scotland, because the Scottish people have rejected them.
      I will not repeat the arguments we adduced on this subject in Committee. My suggestion forms the basis of an entirely new Amendment and I am prepared to leave the position as it stands in the Bill in respect of the Annan and Gretna area. But in the Cromarty Firth State management area, the properties should be handed over to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. This would be to the benefit of the Government and the nation, because it would reduce the amount of money that would have to be found in view of the profits that would be made. Where the State, by pouring in money, is improving an area, some of the return should come to the State.
      5.30 p.m.
      I put this matter seriously and I hope that the Under-Secretary, who suggested that we had started the debate in an atmosphere of agreement, will look at it seriously. I am sure that it would commend itself as a practical proposition to many people in Scotland and to many in the Cromarty area.
      I do not know to what extent the Under-Secretary has consulted his right hon. Friend about this matter and what further consultations have taken place in that part of the world. I ask him not to reject the Amendment out of hand. I would not press it if he asks us to withdraw it so that he can consider it again and take action in another place—though he would have a devil of a job in another place, because that is where the enemy of State management is; that is where the beer barons are. We have never regarded them as friends of Scotland.
      The Government should seriously consider the Amendment. It is practical and worth while, and we would be putting

      1637
      the properties into the hands of people who are themselves giving advice to other people about how to run them and people who are being entrusted by the Government to build and to manage hotels in different parts of the country. I know that they have decided to lease certain of the new hotels they are building, but they could do the same thing here, and we would achieve the result desired by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, that of local people managing these properties. What could be better than local people managing them under the ownership of the Highlands and Islands Development Board? This is the way out. I am sure that it would satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and it would certainly satisfy my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I rise briefly to support the Amendment. It is widely recognised in the Highlands that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's efforts to revitalise the area in which the Cromarty Firth State management district exists have brought considerable benefit and development to that area. The proposal contained in the Amendment seems to introduce no very new departure for the Board, for it has already gone into the tourist business in a major way in constructing new hotels and in assisting other local interests to develop hotels in the Highland counties for which it has the prime responsibility of economic development.
      The prospect of these hotels and other licensed premises falling into the hands of those who, perhaps, do not share the local understandings of the problems and potentialities of this area for tourism, and who may be more interested in turning a fast buck, is one which must cause all of us who are concerned about Highland development to pause. It is also recognised that the Highlands and Islands Development Board's grant and loan scheme has done excellent work and has backed many projects which have brought new jobs to the Highlands.
      My right hon. Friend has referred to the amount of money spent by the Board and the number of jobs it has provided. But what is also plain is that the scheme is beginning, to a certain extent, to run out of steam and that there is a need for a new departure in the sense that the Board ought to take more of an initiative
      1638
      in establishing new industries. It has the expertise, the management capabilities, the accountants on its staff and, above all, a capacity to judge the abilities of those who live in the area to take over and run enterprises which the Board is promoting and financing.
      Consequently, the Board would be eminently well placed to embark upon the scheme put forward in the Amendment as part of a revitalised drive to fulfil the vision contained in the plans for the development of the Moray Firth area. Those plans have run out of steam, to some extent, since the present Government came to power and the momentum which was provided by the decision of the former Labour Government to set up the aluminium smelter has sadly fallen behind.
      It would be a useful demonstration of the Government's commitment to the vision of the Moray Firth development plan, in its widest context, if they were to take very seriously the proposal put forward in the Amendment. The Highlands and Islands Development Board may very well decide that it does not think it fitting to run and manage these hotels and other licensed properties directly. It might choose the method of leasing, which it has in other cases. But the Board would be better placed to make a sounder judgment as to who would run these premises in the best interests of the area than the Secretary of State at the distance of St. Andrew's House. That they be run in the interests of the area must be the prime objective of all concerned about the proposal in the Bill.
      The proposals have very little merit. There is some evidence that the existence of these management districts is, perhaps, in a sense, an historical anomaly. But that is not sufficient reason to do away with them if the system is working very well. However, it is not open to me, on the Amendment, to go into the principle which has led the Government to give such an extraordinarily high priority to what is essentially a very minor Measure. When we are faced with crushing unemployment in Scotland and with a record rise in unemployment in June, it is almost inconceivable that we should be debating such a puny Measure.
      Mr. John Stokes: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that

      1639
      this is not an important Measure and that there are more valuable subjects to occupy the time of the House, perhaps I could ask him and his hon. Friends why they took such an unconscionable length of time not only over the Committee stage but also by putting down all these Amendments and arranging for a two-day debate.
      Mr. Ross: This is not our Bill; it is yours.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's concern about Scotland. I hope that he will make his own representations to his Government and find out from them if they have Measures which they will bring before the House to remedy the situation. They have given no word of them to the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the second day of the debate was given out of Opposition time at the behest of the Opposition? If he thinks it is so unimportant, could he explain what their great interest is in this matter?
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman cannot slide out of the Government's responsiblities in that way. The Oposition make the best use of the time available to enable issues which are presented by the Government to be adequately debated. The Opposition are faced with frequent attempts by the Government to push through measures which, although they are relatively minor in the framework of the country as a whole, are very important for the areas concerned. This matter is important for the area of Ross and Cromarty.
      That does not detract from the importance for the House of recognising the framework in which the Government have thought it right to bring forward the Bill as one of their top legislative priorities for Scotland. No one can argue—I doubt if the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) would have the face to argue—that the Bill will profoundly alter the face of even Ross and Cromarty, but far less of Scotland as a whole.
      My argument is that the Government have deprived by stealth the Highlands and Islands Development Board of the power of initiative to change the
      1640
      economy of the Highlands area for which it has responsibility. There is a growing concern throughout the Highlands that the activities of the Board will be increasingly cramped. I cite as an illustration of this the fact that since the General Election not one new industrial project has come to my constituency, despite the fact that in the previous year no fewer than five new factories were opened.
      Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should not whisper that. He has no idea how lucky he is. In view of what is happening in Scotland as a whole his constituency is lucky not to have lost some ventures.
      Mr. Maclennan: I know that in a speech in Scotland my right hon. Friend said that we had lost a factory at Thurso. It is extraordinary that at such a time this should be the Government's measure of development for the Highlands and that since the Government took office this is the only opportunity that the House has had to debate the Highlands in any shape or form, save for an Adjournment debate that I initiated. Is this a measure of the interest that the Government have in the development of the Highlands?
      Mr. Ian MacArthur: What will be the amount of saving for the Highlands following the halving of selective employment tax?
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not followed my point. We have not been given an opportunity to debate his Government's policy for the area—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. Hon. Members must restrain themselves a little. I understand that we are dealing mainly with public houses, not with general economic policy.
      Mr. Maclennan: With due deference to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tourism has considerable importance in the economy, particularly in this area, which has been designated by the Highlands and Islands Development. Board as one of its key development areas. I am anxious to elicit the Government's attitude to the Board's rôle in this matter.
      The Board has rightly enjoyed great prestige, but the Government are

      1641
      embarked on a course which can damage the Board, and which, by a process of stealth, will undermine the Board's influence to help the Highlands, and particularly this area. It is no secret that in this area there are interests which have from the start sought to destroy the Board. It is very much in the hope that the Under-Secretary will take this opportunity of demonstrating that these fears for the future of the Board are unjustified that I commend the Amendment to the Government.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Norman Buchan: I am, as hon. Members opposite know, a man of immense moderation. When I was, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), in charge of this Department in Scotland and I visited the areas, the headline the next day was—
      "Pub tour on a quarter of a pint".
      This proves my measure of moderation, but even my moderation quails before that of my right hon. Friend who, to try to get some glimmer of response from the Government, has halved what our demands should be and has tackled only the question of the Cromarty area and left Gretna to some of the wolves represented by hon. Members opposite. So this is a very modest demand that we make.
      I have refrained from taking part in these debates till now, but I am impelled to enter this debate. Above all, the Scottish section of this Government have got themselves into an appalling fix. One of the great problems which has been posed by this most meretricous of Bills, was the involvement of the Tory Party with the brewers. As the Tory Party is financed to such an extent by the brewers, and considering that as its first piece of legislation it brings in a Measure to flog State property to the brewers, and as there is no security written into the Bill as to how the assets are to be disposed of, we are right to be suspicious.
      In Scotland we have even more reason to be suspicious. There is a story about bottles flying at a football match and someone ducking as the bottles come over. His companion says "Do not worry. It will not hit you unless your name is on the bottle". "That is just a trouble", he said," he said; "My name is McEwan".
      1642
      The Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party is not only "McEwan" but, as the Government Whip has just pointed out, his name is also "Younger"—William McEwan Younger. There is beer dripping from every syllable.
      An Amendment which the Government should have accepted clearly set out the method by which these assets should be disposed of. If that had been written into the Bill suspicion would have been removed, but every time we raise this point hon. Members opposite say that they are above suspicion. But they never take any action to deal with that suspicion. The opportunity was given last night in an Amendment setting out one method of disposing of the suspicion.
      We are presented with a blank cheque, and it is always very foolish to accept a blank cheque. When it is a blank cheque from the Tory Party it is careless not to look at it twice. And when it is a blank cheque from the Tory Party in relation to brewers it is positively criminal not to do so.
      The Government have missed their opportunity. The Under-Secretary said frankly in Committee:
      "The simple point is whether we shall achieve in our method of sale the degree of impartiality and professional expertise we require."
      Good. But he also said:
      "Commercial considerations are likely to arise no matter how the properties are sold."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 20th May, 1971; c. 418.]
      Of course commercial considerations arise, but the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to write in a method so that my suspicion, which 5 million people in Scotland share, can be removed.
      The Amendment is a way out for one part of the State management areas, though not the Gretna district. I only regret that we do not have the same kind of development mechanism there as we have with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The Board is the most advanced piece of planning mechanism this country has ever developed. Far from its being over-used, the trouble is that, if anything, we under-used it while we were in power. We tend to be moderate in government, unlike the Right-wing barbarians opposite. I mean by "barbarians" a group of people—
      Mr. MacArthur: I thought that the hon. Gentleman said that his party when in government had abused the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I assume that he means they did so by imposing on the Highlands selective employment tax, which took far more out of them than the Board was ever able to put in.
      Mr. Buchan: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to get back on to the one subject that he has talked about for the past 12 months. I thought that he was rising to object to what I said about the Right-wing barbarians. I was going on to define "barbarians" as people who assist in the destruction of civilisation, as in the Government's destruction of welfare milk, the introduction of museum charges and so on. In the one area where we have developed a planning mechanism with real powers we are beginning to see a waste of effort, as the drive and impetus that came with the creation of the Board goes out of the Highlands and Islands. I said not that we had abused the Board but that we had under-used it. We should have been a great deal tougher in using it. I hope that the next time we are in power we shall take a leaf from the Conservative Party's book and express some of our ideas more forcefully and use the full powers we have given to the Board.
      We want to deal with some of the barons, whether beer or land barons. A recent Fabian pamphlet "Acreocracy" published in Scotland tells of the ownership of the huge estates. The Duke of Argyll has 140,000 acres in the County of Perth. The huge acreage in Scotland owned by individuals is twice the size of the four cities of Scotland. The connection between the beer and land barons is close. Since the power of land possession is holding up so much development in the Highland areas, it is right that we should be moving the Board towards dealing with that.
      Here we are making a modest, moderate demand. We say that the mechanism exists which can remove suspicion from the Government, a mechanism whereby public property can be transferred into an existing board, established to develop the well being and the interests of the people in the community.
      1644
      We should not be arguing about handing the scheme over to private buyers but arguing with the Treasury to get the right amount of public expenditure into the State management district to develop it properly in the interests of tourism. Ross and Cromarty is one of the developing areas in the Highlands. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) should remember that that is because of the policies of the last Government, now destroyed by the policy of his own party.
      With the expected increase in population, and the resulting rich pickings, the brewers come along, and that is wrong. As even Lloyd-George said, it is not right that values which are increased because of social action should be allowed to flow into private pockets. When potential value of hotels and establishments of that kind is increasing because of public action and expenditure from the pockets of ordinary people, it is not right that just at that moment of development the potential profit should be transferred to the greedy hands of the brewers. In view of the great Calvinist background of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I hope that he will see the matter as an engagement of conscience, as it is, and support us on the side of the angels.
      I have been disturbed by the Government's failure to rid themselves of the charge of corruption, the suspicion that I and others have on this matter. Over the past 12 months they have turned the Palace of Westminster into a kind of oriental bazaar in which an auction has been going on—B.E.A., North Sea gas and even education. The Secretary of State for Education has suggested that vending machines for soft drinks should be put in schools in place of welfare milk, an astonishing concept. There is also the question of Thomas Cook, an undertaking that is related to the Bill, because Thomas Cook started in business by organising temperance outings. The Government had their beady eyes on Thomas Cook, and now they have them on beer. We wonder why. They say that it has nothing to do with the involvement of the brewers. If it has nothing to do with the funds they obtained for their General Election campaign from the Youngers and others, it has to do with either political ideology or political nepotism. That is why they protest so much. They do not know the difference between political nepotism and political ideology.

      1645
      Even worse, I have a feeling that political nepotism is their political ideology. Hence the shoddiness of the proposal before us.
      The Government can get away from all the charges by understanding that we have a public body free of such suspicions, pledged to the development and welfare of the people of the Highland areas. Let them take their courage in both hands and tell the Treasury, "We are not flogging off these pubs to help your accounts. We want more money from you to develop the scheme in the interests of tourism and the people of Scotland", including the constituents of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty.
      Mr. Hamish Gray: I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). He devoted a lot of it to the activities and achievements of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I support what he said. I have always been a supporter of the Board, and I was delighted when it was created. From its rather chequered career in its early days. I watched it develop into a viable Board which has created industry in the Highlands and has been very acceptable to the vast majority of people there. It has had its critics, and from time to time its critics have been justified.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Ross: Not all its critics.
      Mr. Gray: The critics I have in mind have been constructive and the board, which, by and large, has done a very good job, has benefited from their criticisms.
      I do not agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that the Board has lost its steam. I think it is consolidating and I am sure that in the years ahead, with pressure from hon. Members such as the hon. Gentleman and myself, we shall see it achieve even greater things. I do not agree with him in his suggestion that the hotels at present controlled by the State management district in Ross and Cromarty should be transferred to the Board. The Board has, I agree, built two hotels and is in process of building a third. It is going to lease those hotels to private management.
      I am much more anxious to see the hotels at present run by State manage-
      1646
      ment in my constituency run and owned by local individuals so that local participation will to the utmost be represented in these transactions. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock that I do not wish the brewers to go into my constituency in large numbers. I am sure that they will not, for the simple reason that, with one possible exception in my constituency, I doubt whether any of these hotels has the kind of turnover which would attract the brewers.
      Mr. Buchan: I agree with a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. But how will he ensure that these hotels go to local people, or to the existing tenants? The Government have flatly refused to allow such guarantees to be written in. We have been given an assurance but there is nothing to that effect in the Bill.
      Mr. Gray: I am satisfied that the board can play a vital part in this because a great many of these hotels, during the years they have been controlled by Statement management, have not been added to in the form of the provision of considerable advantages as they might have been. One of the powers of the Board is to provide finance where vital accommodation for tourism is being built and where additional jobs are being created. I feel that the Board will play a useful part in that way.
      It was suggested that if the hotels were handed over to the Board the Government would get the rentals which would be charged. I am sure that in the sale of these hotels to private individuals a great many of them will be purchased by families and family concerns and that the Government will get a steady remuneration through the usual taxation system.
      I am not disagreeing with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock in this but I am sure it would not be his wish to mislead us in his reference to the 259 projects to the extent of £1¼ million. It should be pointed out that not all these projects were in the State management area.
      Mr. Ross: I did not say so.
      Mr. Gray: The right hon. Gentleman gave that impression.
      Mr. Ross: I read directly from a report. It referred to Ross-shire. I meant Ross-shire. When I say Ross-shire, and it is heard as Ross-shire, I do not mean Cromarty.
      Mr. Gray: The constituency is known as Ross and Cromarty, and the right hon. hon. Gentleman knows, in the context in which we are talking, that the impression given was that the State management area covered the two. The State management area covers only a fraction of my constituency.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland talked about the brewers as well. All the hon. Members opposite who are taking part talk about the brewers from time to time. When development took place in Caithness and Sutherland at Dounreay, there was no immediate grab by the brewers for all the hotels nearby. The situation in Ross and Cromarty, with the development at Invergordon, is similar. It is one of my greatest regrets that the British Aluminium smelter, which I applaud, does not in itself create a great deal of ancillary industry. That is one of the sad things about it. It is not the type of industry that in itself creates a lot of ancillary industry. I wish it were. I wish there would be a great deal more development there. I am certain that there will be as time goes on. I think it will come from different sources.
      The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested that the Bill would not change the face of Ross and Cromarty. I agree. It is a pity that he did not attend some of our Committee meetings when the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) gave some of his performances which would have been more acceptable at the London Palladium than in Committee. The hon. Gentleman nearly sang to us on one occasion. We were all relieved when he only read out his rhyming couplets instead of singing them. I believe that this will not change the face of Ross and Cromarty, but that it will merely enable local people to participate in the hotel industry, I hope with the assistance of the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman expresses a hope and I go along with it.
      1648
      But there is nothing in the Bill and nothing in anything that the Government have said to give any assurance that local people will benefit in the way he wishes.
      Mr. Gray: I hope that not only will local people benefit in the way I wish but that even some of the people who are at present employed in the State management district will benefit by becoming proprietors of some of the small hotels.
      I have particular respect for the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan). He has a persuasive manner and is so sincere that I am sure we all attach a deal of importance to what he says. But it would be a mistake if the Government were to accept this Amendment, because I believe that greater benefits to my constituency will be achieved by private enterprise taking over these houses.
      Mr. William Hamilton: I was amazed when I saw the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross)—not by the fact that it had been put down but by its extreme modesty. But that is typical of him. It is precisely because it is so modest that the Government would have nothing to lose by accepting the Amendment.
      It is all very well for the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) to talk about private individuals in his constituency buying the pubs. Of course, there is the small matter of finance. It is true—and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) may not be aware of this—that they are going to get first option to buy them. But, of course, if the business in some of these rural pubs is small, as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty indicated, there might not be sufficient attraction to the private individuals concerned and they might not have the cash anyway. Nor might they have the means to get it from whatever source might be available.
      Even if that were the assumption there would be no denying that the tourist potential in the area is considerable and ought to be developed to the maximum. This must involve spending considerable amounts of money. The individuals who the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty hopes may take possession of these pubs will simply not have the available capital.

      1649
      He might say that they could apply to the Highlands and Islands Development Board for it because that is what it is there for. As he has rightly said, the board has built hotels, and it is in the process of building another. It has the expertise, the staff, the personnel and the experience. Furthermore it has a deep commitment to developing the full potential of the Highlands.
      When they introduced this Bill the Government put forward two propositions. The first was that the State should get out of the liquor business. This is their ideology; it need not necessarily be accepted by us, and I hope we shall have a close look at this before the next General Election. Meanwhile the principle of this has been accepted and it is not infringed by the Amendment. It is true that the Highlands and Islands Development Board gets cash from the Treasury. To that extent the Government can say that it is a State body engaged in the liquor trade. It would however, be a minute part of its business.
      That was the first proposition. The second proposition was never explicitly stated, but we know the Government's antipathy towards public enterprise, towards nationalisation except when a private industry such as Rolls-Royce crashes. Then they nationalise. It seems a curious contradiction of principle. However, we can expect this from the present Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock reminded hon. Gentlemen opposite about their misgivings at the time that the Highland and Islands Board was proposed, including their description of it as being "pure Marxism". If there is one place where pure Marxism would be very relevant it is the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The nationalisation of land would be more readily accepted in the Highlands of Scotland than anywhere else in Britain. The sooner it happens the better.
      The Board has powers of compulsory acquisition, and the Government have not sought to limit those powers or curb the activities of the Board. The former Secretary of State for Scotland, who now hovers around somewhere doing something or other in the Department of Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble)—the very man who described this as "Marxism"—was anxious that his constituency should be within the Board's area.
      1650
      6.15 p.m.
      No Scottish Member would deny that the board has breathed life into the Highlands, given it hope such as has never existed for centuries. All that we say in this modest Amendment is that it should be given the chance to expand its activities a little.
      I remember that in Committee, when I had made an erudite speech on the original gravity of beer and its alcohol content and compared the quality of the Carlisle beer with the rubbish that is produced by the contributors to the Tory Party, the hon. Gentleman said that he wished he could get Carlisle beer in Ross and Cromarty. That is not allowed, but if this proposition were accepted the board could build its own brewery in the area and get experts from Carlisle to advise on how to produce a far better quality beer than Youngers, Watney Mann, Charrington and all the others who draw their beers from the rivers of this country. Furthermore, the beer could be produced much more cheaply.
      Mr. Gray: May I put the record straight about that last statement by the hon. Member. I did not say what he has suggested. I said that because of transport costs we did not get Carlisle beer in Ross and Cromarty.
      Mr. Hamilton: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I was not deliberately misquoting him; my memory was at fault. I think he would agree that after we had explained the high quality of the beer in Carlisle and its low price compared with the rubbish foisted on the public elsewhere he said that he wished he could get Carlisle beer in his area. If the Board built a brewery in his area he would have a brand-new aluminium smelter, with a great employment potential and a brand-new brewery which employs mostly men. This is what he wants in his area, and it would be an election winner for him.
      Perhaps I should not be giving the hon. Member this advice but I am always willing to be helpful. If he goes to his constituency and tells them about this helpful idea he has had from the hon. Member for Fife, West about establishing new industries in Ross and Cromarty, employing men, and at the same time providing them with cheaper and better beer than is provided by the contributors to the Tory Party, he might at least save

      1651
      his seat, which he will not do at the next election as things look at present.
      Mr. W. E. Garrett: He might save his deposit.
      Mr. Hamilton: There is great merit in this Amendment, and I would strongly advise the hon. Member, in his own interests, to vote with us. I understand that there were petitions in the pubs and hotels in this area when the Government proposed the introduction of this Bill and that many signatures were placed on those petitions. I have a great respect for the hon. Gentleman, and I do not think that he misled the Committee, but he said he had received only two letters on this subject pro or con. Hundreds of people signed these petitions in favour of the retention of the State system. Although the Government did not have a mandate for this, we have accepted the principle that State management should go. We are not infringing that principle in the Amendment, but we are saying that there is an instrument already available with the necessary expertise and finance to do the job.
      The junior Minister at the Home Office who has been handling the Bill with great merit and tolerance but with considerable distaste—he has done reasonably well the job for which he is inadequately paid—argued when we were seeking to set up a liquor trust to do this job that we were taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There may be something in that argument. Some nut it is, but it is a nut that the brewers are anxious to get their greedy claws on. He cannot use that argument about this Amendment.
      We are talking about an area with an unemployment rate far worse than even the worst areas in Scotland, and that is saying something. I understand that the Secretary of State for Scotland has his diary filled with engagements for official closures of factories. This will be his full-time employment in the next year or two. That is a very strong argument for accepting the Amendment. It is not much to ask; it is very modest. We have been co-operative and have accepted the principle of the Bill, with reluctance, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respond in the spirit in which the Amendment has been moved and debated.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The debate on the Amendment has brought out all the old political motives, the same old political claptrap which we have heard in debates on almost every Amendment in Committee and on Report. It must have given great pleasure to the hon. Members for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to express their desire for the nationalisation of almost every activity in the Highlands. The debate has shown them up in their true colours, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) and his constituents will have taken full note of. The surest way for my hon. Friend to lose his seat at the next election would be for him to take the advice of the hon. Member for Fife, West. He does not require me to give him that advice because I know he has the common sense not to listen to what has been said.
      I join in the tribute paid to the Highland and Islands Development Board by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and by other hon. Members. The Board is doing a good job in the Highlands; it deserves our support, and it is getting our support. I take exception to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland when he criticised the support which we give to the Board. We are supporting the board and are anxious to see it successful in the policies which it is introducing into the Highlands. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland also criticised what happened in Committee. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) had read what I said. He did not quite quote it all, but he was at least accurate in his source of information. I exhort the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to read what I said about the disposal of assets and our hope that where people locally want to buy, particularly tenants, the facilities will be available for them.
      There are tenants of properties other than licensed properties, and we want to give local people the opportunity to purchase. My hon. and learned Friend yesterday spoke of the financial facilities available to managers and others who put in offers and of the opportunities which will be available for them to do so. We are, therefore, concerned that local people should have these opportunities, and this

      1653
      is one point which we shall be taking up in relation to disposal.
      Mr. Buchan: I am glad the hon. Gentleman recognised that I quoted him correctly, but he must not leave the suggestion with the House that I approve of that which I quoted. I was opposing that which I quoted. The whole grave-men of the case is that, despite what appears in HANSARD, which no longer matters if the Bill becomes an Act, not one single action has been taken, not a single Clause or Schedule has been introduced, to safeguard the position. Assurances from the Conservative Party are not enough.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I take the point of the hon. Gentleman that by quoting my speech he was not endorsing it. I did not intend to imply that he was. He acknowledged what I said in Committee, whereas some of his right hon. and hon. Friends implied that some of the things that had been said had not been said.
      We debated fully last night the whole question of the methods of disposal, and I do not want to return to these wider issues. I will deal with the detailed question whether it would be right or wrong to hand over these assets to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock is right in saying that the Board is much concerned with hotel development within this area. He quoted from one publication of the Board, but a more interesting publication to quote is the Board's fourth report in 1969. The Board did a survey of tourist needs in the Highlands and pointed to the need for much greater provision of hotel and boarding house accommodation. The report suggested a programme which the board hoped to follow to meet the needs of tourism in the Highlands. Part of this programme will be available to those who purchase hotels in the Cromarty State management area. The Board gives help to existing hotels and boarding houses which wish to extend, and in future these arrangements will cover equally the hotels that are currently owned by the State Management. The Board also suggested ways of bringing together individuals and bodies to help in the construction and development of hotels. I freely admit the interest of the Board in this.
      1654
      My colleagues in Government and I feel strongly that the taking over and running of this business is not a function of the State, whether the State is in the guise of the Home Office, the Scottish Home and Health Department or the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and this goes right back to our fundamental debate on the Bill. We believe that it is not the State's function to carry on the business of hotels and public houses and that this is properly a function of private enterprise.
      6.30 p.m.
      The main function of the Highlands and Islands Development Board is that of development, and the resources of the Board for development purposes will be available to those who succeed the Secretary of State in operating these premises in the State management districts. The idea that the Board could take over and run these premises does not fall directly speaking within the development purposes of the Board, though I appreciate that in a legal and technical sense the Board would have power to do so.
      Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister saying that, although the Board has the capacity to run businesses and this power is written into the legislation, the present Government will not allow the Board to do so, or is he saying that the Government do not intend to allow it to run this particular type of business?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The board has the legal capacity to do so, but we believe that private enterprise should be given the opportunity to run those sectors which are right for private enterprise. This is where we differ in philosophy from the Labour Party. We must agree to differ on this matter since it is not our intention to encourage State operation in these activities.
      The Highlands and Islands Development Board in its 1969 programme expressed the wish to provide new hotels in particular areas in the West and in the Islands, where it believed facilities were needed and where other organisations and agencies were not meeting these needs. The board provided the first hotel under this scheme at Craignure on the Island of Mull, and there is another scheme under consideration, which is in its planning stage, on the Island of Barr. The Board

      1655
      has shown no sign of eagerness to run the hotels. The running of State management premises can be left to private enterprise, without involvement by the Board except where there is an appropriate development project. What reason can there be for the Board becoming directly involved in trading? The board has seen no reason so far for doing so, and we see no reason for it to engage in these activities. The right hon. Gentleman has not made out a case for saying that the Secretary of State should approve of the Board going in for these particular activities.
      The point was made that the Board might take over these hotels and then lease them out. This again raises a matter of principle. I see no reason for the Board investing in these assets any more than that the Secretary of State should do so. Since the return on capital in the State management districts is not attractive to the State, I do not see that it would be any more attractive to the Board, and it would no doubt consider whether better use could be made of its capital. Therefore, on both these grounds I would ask the House to reject the Amendment.
      I was also asked about consultation with local advisory committees and with the Board. We have not asked for the Board's views on this Amendment. We believe that in principle this is not a function of the Board and to that extent have not discussed it with it.
      Mr. Buchan: Disgraceful.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are conscious of the Board's own desire not to get involved in running this business.
      Mr. William Hamilton: How does the hon. Gentleman know that?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Because the board has let out to private enterprise the one hotel built by the Board which private enterprise is operating on the Board's behalf. We are in close touch with the board about the State management district and my officials are keeping the Board informed of our proposals about selling off the assets in the State management area.
      Mr. Buchan: I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to say that he was not even going to consult the Board about a matter which affects part of the economy of the Highlands, but he is say-
      1656
      ing that he did not put this specific Amendment to the Board. Why has he not done so? This matter affects the Highlands, it is now being debated in Parliament and should have been discussed with the Board.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We are in consultation with the Board and, although we did not discuss this specific Amendment, the Board has not expressed to us any wish to take over these assets.
      I repeat the statement I made in Committee, that we are in consultation with the local advisory committees. The function of these committees relates to the day-to-day running of State management districts, and their function does not involve general principles of policy. To that extent we have not consulted local advisory committees on these basic matters of policy or on this Amendment. We have put our proposals to these committees and have asked for their comments. I can confirm that that has been done and that they are aware of our proposals.
      I apologise for answering this debate at some length, but it raises a matter of principle. I am at one with right hon. and hon. Members opposite in wishing to see the development of tourism in the Highlands. However, we believe that this should be done in the way it has been done in the Ross and Cromarty area, which is ready and willing to take advantage of the opportunity given to it by the Government in this Bill. In these circumstances I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
      Mr. Ross: I cannot say that I am disappointed. The hon. Gentleman's reply was more or less what I expected.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That does not surprise me in the least. The right hon. Gentleman always prefaces his remarks by saying that he has got what he expected.
      Mr. Ross: It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had said that before concluding his speech, than interrupting mine before I had time to get beyond the first sentence.
      The hon. Gentleman made one staggering remark when he said that he did not think there was any reason to consult the Highlands and Islands Development Board about this Amendment. Having

      1657
      said that, he back-tracked immediately and said that his officials were in touch with the Board about the disposal of these assets. I thank heaven that they are in touch with someone. Last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) told us how a pledge had been given that the Carlisle workers and managers would be kept up to date with what was going on, and that nothing had been done.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: They ratted.
      Mr. Ross: I prefer not to use that expression. My hon. Friend may rely on me to make my own speech and put my own emphasis on it.
      The Under-Secretary said that there was a fundamental and basic objection to the Amendment since on no account should the State get mixed up in the liquor trade. It took him a while to discover that. There have been quite a few Tory Governments since 1916. It was not the Labour Party which set up the State management scheme, after all. It was the war time coalition Government, when Lloyd George was Home Secretary. The matter was reconsidered in 1921, with the Tories dominant, and again it was continued. We had any number of Tory Governments before the war, and we had 13 years of them after the war. But, suddenly, the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office discovers that it is basic and fundamental that nothing connected with the State should sell any commodity for profit.
      If that is so, all the electricity boards had better stop selling cookers, fridges, and the rest of it. The Scottish Transport Group had better start getting rid of its hotels. It was all very well for these hotels to be run by McBrayne's, but as soon as the company became part of the Scottish Transport Group, philosophically and basically it has no right to do so. Then there are British Railways. Apparently they have no right to run hotels. Gleneagles and Turnberry are a tribute to their efficiency. They are the best hotels in Scotland. However, the State should not be involved in them.
      The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The Government are trying to decorate with dogma a decision which was taken, I am sure against the good
      1658
      judgment of the Home Secretary, to commit this dastardly deed in respect of State management. It will not make a bit of difference, and the hon. Gentleman knows it, in respect of any major aspect of policy. But it will please a lot of Tories in Scotland when the great triumph of the Secretary of State is proclaimed to a Tory Conference: "We got rid of State management". Never mind about U.C.S. and the fact that in the summer, unprecedented in the month of June, unemployment is now running at 121,647. We know that it will go up again in July when youngsters leave school. On present trends, unemployment will be over 150,000 in February of next year. But, never mind; we have dealt with a great problem. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should be ashamed of themselves.
      I will not go on very much further. We went on about it before. The hon. Gentleman is devoid of any justification for what he is doing. We tried to give him a way out in the shape of the Highlands and Islands Development Board. It has the power and the know how, and it could decide whether to deal directly or on the basis of leaving the premises to managers or tenants. But, no; everything must be uniform. There is a town in England—I believe that it is Hull—which has its own telephone system. I suppose that is next on the list. There are some great levellers on the benches opposite who say that we must not have anything different. It used to be a matter for pride that there were differences and eccentricities about the way we did things in different parts of the country.
      6.45 p.m.
      The next thing that we shall discover is that we have to make changes in the Bill where certain provisions apply only to England and Wales and where others apply only to Scotland. Those will have to be made uniform, too. The Home Secretary ought to look at the Bill to see what Amendments he authorised after lengthy Cabinet meetings to the effect that certain parts shall not apply to Scotland. It is ridiculous that this great Government should bring this Measure forward so early in their lives.
      The hon. Gentleman made some reference to our giving up a Supply Day. I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us

      1659
      where he got his information. It is not true.
      Mr. James Hamilton: No, it is untrue.
      Mr. Buchan: That is the same thing.
      Mr. Ross: We curtailed our remarks in Committee because the hon. Gentleman was becoming concerned about the length of time that the Committee's consideration was taking. We complied with his request, and some of the Amendments that we are discussing today should have been discussed in Committee. The Government agreed to give additional time for the Report stage. However, it is not additional or extra time; it is adequate time for the discussion of these problems.
      We are dealing with property to the value of nearly £5 million which is to be disposed of in a way which has created certain suspicions among sections of the community. Hon. Gentlemen opposite can wriggle as much as they like. When we know that the Chairman of the Tory

      Division No. 393.]

      AYES

      [6.49 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Doig, Peter

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Hunter, Adam

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Driberg, Tom

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Duffy, A. E. P.

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Dunnett, Jack

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Eadie, Alex

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      John, Brynmor

      Bennett, James, (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Ellis, Tom

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Bishop, E. S.

      English, Michael

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Evans, Fred

      Kerr, Russell

      Booth, Albert

      Faulds, Andrew

      Kinnock, Neil

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

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

      Lamond, James

      Bradley, Tom

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Latham, Arthur

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Lawson, George

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

      Forrester, John

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Buchan, Norman

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Leonard, Dick

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

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Garrett, W. E.

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Ginsburg, David

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Golding, John

      Loughlin, Charles

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Gourlay, Harry

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      McBride, Neil

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Cohen, Stanley

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      McElhone, Frank

      Concannon, J. D.

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Conlan, Bernard

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Hamling, William

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

      Cronin, John

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hardy, Peter

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Davidson, Arthur

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Mendelson, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Millan, Bruce

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Deakins, Eric

      Horam, John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Delargy, H. J.

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Molloy, William

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Party in Scotland is Sir William McEwan Younger and that over the three years of the run-up to the General Election, as chairman of Scottish and Newcastle Breweries, he gave £59,000 to the Tory Party, it is no wonder that there is a measure of suspicion about this Bill.
      I wish that I had as much faith as the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) in the Government's pledges. He has no real reassurance about who will get the licensed premises in the Cromarty-Firth area, and I am sure that he is sufficiently intelligent to know it. There is no guarantee that any individual getting them with the backing of a brewer will not be part of another brewing empire in a very few years.
      We gave the Government a way out of this difficulty. They have not taken it, and I trust that we shall defeat them in the Division lobby.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 210.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Roper, John

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Rose, Paul B.

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

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Wallace, George

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Sandelson, Neville

      Watkins, David

      O'Malley, Brian

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

      Weitzman, David

      Oram, Bert

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

      Wellbeloved, James

      Orme, Stanley

      Sillars, James

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silverman, Julius

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Skinner, Dennis

      Whitlock, William

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Small, William

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Pendry, Tom

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Stallard, A. W.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Woof, Robert

      Probert, Arthur

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

      Rankin, John

      Tinn, James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Torney, Tom

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Varley, Eric G.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mawby, Ray

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Astor, John

      Cower, Raymond

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

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Moate, Roger

      Awdry, Daniel

      Gray, Hamish

      Molyneaux, James

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Green, Alan

      Money, Ernle

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Batsford, Brian

      Gurden, Harold

      Monro, Hector

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Bell, Ronald

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mudd, David

      Benyon, W.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Murton, Oscar

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Biggs-Daviton, John

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Neave, Airey

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Havers, Michael

      Normanton, Tom

      Body, Richard

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nott, John

      Boscawen, Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Onslow, Cranley

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hiley, Joseph

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Bray, Ronald

      Holland, Philip

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Peel, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Percival, Ian

      Bryan, Paul

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Pink, R. Bonner

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

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Burden, F. A.

      Hunt, John

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Carlisle, Mark

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Chapman, Sydney

      James, David

      Raison, Timothy

      Churchill, W. S.

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Redmond, Robert

      Clegg, Walter

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Cookie, Robert

      Kilfedder, James

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Coombs, Derek

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cormack, Patrick

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Costain, A. P

      Kinsey, J, R,

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Critchley, Julian

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Crouch, David

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter

      Curran, Charles

      Lambton, Antony

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Lane, David

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Scott, Nicholas

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Le Marchant, Spencer

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

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

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

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Dixon, Piers

      Longden, Gilbert

      Simeons, Charles

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Loveridge, John

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      Dykes, Hugh

      MacArthur, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Spence, John

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

      McLaren, Martin

      Sproat, lain

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Farr, John

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Fell, Anthony

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Sutcliffe, John

      Fidler, Michael

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Madel, David

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Fowler, Norman

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Fox, Marcus

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Fry, Peter

      Mather, Carol

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Gardner, Edward

      Maude, Angus

      Tebbit, Norman

      Thatcher, Bt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Wall, Patrick

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Trew, Peter

      Waiters, Dennis

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Younger, Hn. George

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Warren, Kenneth

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Waddington, David

      Amendment made: No. 21, in page 3, line 39, leave out subsection (7).—[Mr. Buchanan-Smith.]

    Clause 5

      REPEAL OF PART V OF ACT OF 1964 AND PART V OF ACT OF 1959
      Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 4, line 1, leave out:
      'When it appears to the Secretary of State that '.
      Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment I think it will be convenient to discuss the following Amendments: No. 24, in page 4, line 2, leave out 'or' and insert 'and'.
      No. 25, in page 4, line 3, leave out 'as the case may be'.
      No. 26, in page 4, line 4, leave out from 'Act' to end of subsection and insert:
      'shall remain in force until repealed by an order made by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses of Parliament '.
      No. 27, in page 4, line 11, at end insert:
      (3) An order made under this section shall be subject to approval by both houses of Parliament.
      Mr. Ross: That will be convenient, Mr. Speaker.
      This group of Amendments deal with Clause 5. The point to note is that, although we are abolishing straight away the monopoly powers of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland over the State management districts of Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty Firth, the right of those Ministers to continue to supply goes on until such time as it is eventually repealed by order.
      These are important powers which it is suggested should continue for a year. I think they should continue for much longer. The importance of the powers is that the Secretary of State could expand his business during this time. It may be that in the circumstances it is
      1664
      necessary to do that, but it is essential that the repeal of legislation as important as this should not be done quietly. It ought to be done after debate in the House.
      The intention of the Amendment is to make the Clause much more positive by taking away from the Secretary of State for Scotland the power to do something at will. Instead the change being made quietly by means of a Statutory Instrument which no one will hear about, we say that if he wants to amend the legislation he should adopt the affirmative Resolution procedure and debate the matter in the House.
      7.0 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the affirmative Resolution procedure is adopted to wind up the remaining powers of the Secretary of State after schemes in the State management areas have ceased to trade. The monopoly powers of the Secretary of State are removed when the Bill receives the Royal Assent. The Clause provides that when the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland have completed the disposal of the assets, they should then, by Statutory Instrument, be able to repeal their powers to trade in these areas.
      I cannot see the purpose of requiring that that action should be taken by Order and be subject to an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. The only effect of the Amendment would be that, although the assets of the State management schemes had been sold, and although the Secretary of State no longer had power to license premises, he could not wind up his legislative powers without coming back to the House to debate the Order to do that. The Amendment would achieve nothing. It would serve no useful purpose, and would merely retain on the Statute Book provisions which would be dead wood. I therefore invite the House to reject the Amendment.

      1665
      The purpose of Amendments No. 24 and 25 is to say that the Secretary of State for Scotland should not make an Order removing his powers after he has disposed of all the premises in the Scottish areas unless at the same time an Order is made by the Home Secretary for the Carlisle area. It seems to me that no useful purpose would be served by requiring both Orders to be made at the same time.
      Once the assets have been disposed of, and no further trading is being carried

      Division No. 394.]

      AYES

      [7.3 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Garrett, W. E.

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

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Molloy, William

      Alien, Scholefield

      Ginsburg, David

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Ashton, Joe

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Atkinson, Norman

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Oram, Bert

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Orme, Stanley

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Paget, R. T.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Booth, Albert

      Hamling, William

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Bradley, Tom

      Hardy, Peter

      Pendry, Tom

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

      Hattersley, Roy

      Pentland, Norman

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

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Buchan, Norman

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Probert, Arthur

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Horam, John

      Rankin, John

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Roper, John

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Hunter, Adam

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Sandelson, Neville

      Cohen, Stanley

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

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

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

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Sillars, James

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      John-, Brynmor

      Silverman, Julius

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

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

      Skinner, Dennis

      Cronin, John

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Small, William

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kerr, Russell

      Spearing, Nigel

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Kinnock, Nell

      Stallard, A. W.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamond, James

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Latham, Arthur

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

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lawson, George

      Tinn, James

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Torney, Tom

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Tuck, Raphael

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Driberg, Tom

      Loughlin, Charles

      Wallace, George

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Watkins, David

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Weitzman, David

      Eadie, Alex

      McBride, Neil

      Wellbeloved, James

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McCartney, Hugh

      White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ellis, Tom

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Whitlock, William

      English, Michael

      Maclennan, Robert

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Evans, Fred

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Faulds, Andrew

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

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Woof, Robert

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mendeison, John

      Forrester, John

      Mikardo, Ian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Miller, Dr. M, S.

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Calpern, Sir Myer

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Mr. John Golding.

      on by the Secretaries of State in the areas for which they have a responsibility, it seems right that they should have the power, by Statutory Instrument, to repeal the existing provisions of the 1964 or 1959 Acts. I therefore invite the House to reject these Amendments also.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 176, Noes 204.

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Osborn, John

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Astor, John

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Peel, John

      Awdry, Daniel

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Percival, Ian

      Baker, W, H. K. (Banff)

      Havers, Michael

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Batsford, Brian

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Hiley, Joseph

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bell, Ronald

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

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Benyon, W.

      Holland, Philip

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Raison, Timothy

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Body, Richard

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Redmond, Robert

      Boscawen, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hunt, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Bray, Ronald

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      James, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Rost, Peter

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Bryan, Paul

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Scott, Nicholas

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Kimball, Marcus

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

      Burden, F. A.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Shulton, William (Clapham)

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

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Simeons, Charles

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Chapman, Sydney

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington

      Churchill, W. S.

      Knox, David

      Speed, Keith

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lambton, Antony

      Spence, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Lane, David

      Sproat, lain

      Cooke, Robert

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Coombs, Derek

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col, Sir M.

      Cormack, Patrick

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

      Sutcliffe, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Tapsell, Peter

      Critchley, Julian

      Loveridge, John

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Crouch, David

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

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

      Crowder, F. P.

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Curran, Charles

      McLaren, Martin

      Tebbit, Norman

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

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

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Trew, Peter

      Dixon, Piers

      Maginnis, John E.

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Marten, Neil

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Mather, Carol

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Maude, Angus

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Vickers, Dame Joan

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

      Mawby, Ray

      Waddington, David

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Farr, John

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Fell, Anthony

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

      Wall, Patrick

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Moate, Roger

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Fidler, Michael

      Molyneaux, James

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Money, Ernle

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Fowler, Norman

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Fox, Marcus

      Monro, Hector

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Fry, Peter

      More, Jasper

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gardner, Edward

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mudd, David

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gower, Raymond

      Murton, Oscar

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Gray, Hamish

      Neave, Airey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Green, Alan

      Nott, John

      Mr. Paul Hawkins and

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Hugh Rossi.

      Gurden, Harold

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      7.12 p.m.
      Mr. Carlisle: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      We have had a protracted Committee stage and a fairly long Report stage, and no one could suggest that the Bill's details have not been fully argued. But we have
      1668
      heard so much extravagant language and so many utterly unfounded imputations from hon. Members opposite that I should like to remind the House what the Bill does and the reasons for it.
      It brings to an end State management of the liquor trade which has operated in

      1669
      three small areas—Carlisle, Gretna and the Cromarty Firth area—in two stages. First, on the date of the Royal Assent, Clause 1 abolishes the monopoly position of the Secretary of State in those areas; second, Clause 2 requires the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland to dispose of their properties in those areas on such terms as appear to them expedient in the public interest. After that, the provisions of the 1959 and 1964 Acts may be repealed by Statutory Instrument.
      The Bill simply ends what started as an experiment over 50 years ago, aimed at implementing the concern about drunkenness which was said to exist in those areas. It has been allowed to continue despite the fact that the reason for it has long passed.
      In view of the wild accusations which have been made, I should like to go over the reasons which the Home Secretary gave on Second Reading for the Government's decision to legislate. First, we believe that the continuance of the State's monopoly is a restriction on freedom of choice and on the freedom of individuals to apply for licences which operates in the rest of the country—for off-licences and on-licences. Ever since the State Management Scheme came into being, those who live in Carlisle have not been able to buy from such a wide range of off-licence outlets as is available in the rest of the country, where supermarkets and grocers provide a sense of competition to the advantage of the inhabitants.
      Second, the Secretary of State's power to prevent any competition to the State management scheme was usurping the powers of local licensing magistrates, who could operate on their local knowledge.
      Third, we believe that there is a wholly inadequate return on the capital invested in this scheme. As my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading, taking the net trading profit, in the last three years the rate of return on the estimated value of the assets in the Carlisle area amounts to 4 per cent. before tax. It is economically ridiculous to carry on at that rate when the State has to borrow money at 8 or 9 per cent.
      The Opposition, particularly the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Gentleman argued many times in Committee that we had under-estimated the value of these premises, which he said
      1670
      was much more than the £4 million we suggested. If so, the rate of return is even less, so the economic argument is strengthened.
      The figures which were criticised on Second Reading related to net trading profit. If one really wants to look at the return on the capital involved which the State has received from the scheme, one should look not at the net trading profit but at the figure which more accurately corresponds to the amount distributed in profits by a commercial company; namely, that amount transmitted to the Consolidated Fund out of the profits of the scheme.
      The figure for the last year up to March, 1970, transmitted was only £19,346. The rest of the profits were all unappropriated and, therefore, used for capital expenditure. If one looks at what happened over the five years ended March, 1970, one sees that the annual profits out of this scheme in Carlisle have amounted in total to £919,927 and that the capital expenditure has totalled £713,346, so that the actual return to the Consolidated Fund has worked out on average at a rate of about 1 per cent. It is, therefore, economic nonsense to suggest that this is a viable and profitable scheme for the State.
      The fourth reason why this Bill was introduced was that we do not believe that the sale of liquor in the area of Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty Firth is an appropriate activity for Government. The social justification which may have justified setting up the scheme in 1916 no longer exists today.
      The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock has attacked me for saying this, but I repeat that in my view it should not be the concern of the Home Secretary or his Department to be bothered with the sale of liquor in three small geographical areas. If it is right, as has been suggested, and if this is a proper activity in which Government should be involved, I again ask the right hon. Gentleman the question which he has studiously avoided throughout these debates: if it is right for Carlisle, why is it not right for the rest of the country? If it is wrong to denationalise the breweries in this area, why was it not right for the Labour Government to advocate that all breweries should be in the hands of the State?
      Mr. William Hamilton: They should be.
      Mr. Carlisle: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's view, and I hope that his right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock will answer my question.
      In view of the wild imputations and allegations that have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, perhaps I should comment on the way in which the sale will be implemented. We have made it clear that we propose to sell these premises by the use of the advice that we receive from outside agents who will be appointed for the purpose of sale. Those outside agents are to be appointed by the Government for this purpose—
      Mr. Ron Lewis: They will be Tories.
      Mr. Carlisle: —and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) knows that the valuation department of the Treasury wrote to the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors inviting him to recommend to the Government appropriate agents for carrying out these sales. As I said on Report, we have invited to act for us those agents whom the President of that Institution has recommended.
      How is it to be done? In Carlisle the unlicensed premises will be valued and offered at or near the valuation price to the existing tenants. Of the unlicensed premises, the smaller 40 or so will be offered at or near valuation to the sitting tenants or managers. If they are not interested, they will go to public auction. The hotels will be sold by public auction. The remainder of the public houses and breweries will be sold in accordance with the advice received from our agents as to the best methods of sale. The premises having been offered at or near valuation to the tenants or managers so as to give them the first right of purchase, if the position should occur that one of these individuals is not willing to meet the price we ask and comes back with a counter offer, then if such a property goes to public auction, the amount offered by the tenant will be taken into account when fixing what would be the appropriate reserve on that piece of property.
      It is nonsensical for hon. Gentlemen opposite to talk about this method of sale being corrupt or to refer to is at
      1672
      "selling off cheap" to the brewing industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite know that there is no truth in that. It is abundantly clear that this is a wholly arm's-length transaction and a correct method for the Government to apply.
      A substantial number of properties is involved and, therefore, the Bill lays down no timetable. We hope to complete the sale in about a year, but there is no question whatever of having to accept a lower price simply to complete the sale within a specific period.
      Among all the wildest remarks made about the Bill, the most disgraceful were some of those made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who I notice has kept well away from any proceedings on the Bill after the despicable speech he made on Second Reading.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: The Minister is a Judas.
      Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying that in the matter of the Government's disposal of these assets, the nation was seeing Toryism at its worst. He said there were two principles which should be a guide, the first that the Government were trustees for the public and should therefore get the best possible price, and the second that in view of the close relationship between the Government and big business, the methods used should be entirely above suspicion and conducted at arm's length. Both points are being met by this method of sale.
      Mr. William Hamilton: But not in the Bill.
      Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Gentleman's remarks were, therefore, completely ridiculous.
      I have been questioned about the cost of the sale. We understand that the likely fees of the agents will be between 2¼ per cent. and 2¾ per cent. of the total amount realised. There will be no solicitors' and conveyancing fees because this work will be done by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in the normal way.
      It has been suggested that by ending the monopoly of the Royal Assent before the disposal of the property has been completed we shall be reducing the price the taxpayer is likely to receive. This is a fallacious argument because, as I said

      1673
      in Committee, anyone who buys knows full well that the monopoly position is to be removed and that he will have to face the normal risk of competition which he would face anywhere else. I therefore do not believe that there is any advantage to the taxpayer in retaining the monopoly position until the sale is made, when it will clearly be ended when the sale is completed.
      As for the applications made in recent months to the two Secretaries of State concerned, we have made it clear that we do not propose to grant any of those pending the Royal Assent to the Bill, although upon the Royal Assent being given to it, when the monopolistic position of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will cease, any of those who have applied and who have licences will, of course, be free to trade. But we reserve the right of what we believe to be the normal commercial practice to oppose any further individual application which we believe would seriously damage the profitablity of any premises we still retain. We have made it clear that, as one of the purposes of the Bill is to remove the present monopoly, it is right to remove it forthwith.
      The other matter concerns staff. Many points have been raised by the hon. Member for Carlisle who will agree that I have always, throughout the long debates, respected his sincerity and interest in this matter with regard to the staff. I have tried to answer his points and will take this final opportunity. The Bill referred to the saving of 1,200 posts. But I remind the House that that is the figure for the saving of Civil Service posts and does not mean that those people will become redundant.
      We believe that the great majority of the staff, such as the hotel and restaurant staffs, barmaids, barmen and cleaners can, we hope, expect to look forward to the opportunity of being taken on by those who continue to run these public houses. I repeat that it is the Government's hope that many of those people will continue in their present occupation. To those who become redundant on the ending of their Civil Service post, I repeat yet again that those who have not found alternative employment within the Civil Service will receive the appropriate compensation under the Superannuation Act, 1965, or the Redundancy Payments Act,
      1674
      1965, whichever is greater. Proposals for improved pension arrangements for premature retirement are now under discussion between the official and the staff sides of the National Whitley Council, and any staff in the State management district who become redundant will receive the benefit of these new arrangements.
      Finally, I return to what I said at the beginning. It has been suggested that the Bill is in some way a paying-off of the brewers. That has been proved to be abject nonsense. Having sat throughout all the speeches that we had in Committee from the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and the hon. Member for Fife, West and others, I must say that I resent the attacks made during debates on the Bill on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. They were utterly malicious and utterly unjustified attacks.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Carlisle: Certainly, on this point.
      Mr. Hamilton: It was no personal attack but an attack on the Government as a whole. Nothing we said impugned the honour of an individual Minister. But there is an imputation—and it will stick—against the Government's honour because, whether they like it or not, they are tied to the brewers; they always have been.
      Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Member for Fife, West says that he never made such an attack, I entirely accept that he did not. He may well be right. But on many occasions his hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle made persistent personal attacks on the integrity of my right hon. Friend the Lord President. We never had a single speech when the hon. Member for Carlisle did not manage to bring my right hon. Friend's name in at some stage.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: I will do it again.
      Mr. Carlisle: I resent the attacks that were made.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that two hon. Gentlemen, myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William

      1675
      Hamilton) had made persona] attacks on individuals; then he suddenly switched to someone else. Can he cite any personal attack I made on any named individual?
      Mr. Carlisle: The tenor of the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was an attack on the integrity of the Home Secretary—
      Mr. Ross Mr. Ross indicated dissent.
      Mr. Carlisle:—and of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The whole of the right hon. Gentleman's purpose was to imply that these two Ministers were unfitted because of the Conservative Party's—he said—close association with the brewers, and that those two people, two of my right hon. Friends, were unfitted to be involved in any way with the Bill. If that is not an attack on the personal integrity of Ministers, I do not know what is.
      I have made clear the reasons for the Bill. We do not believe that it is right for the Government to continue in an experiment started over 50 years ago and to continue the powers of the Secretary of State in these particular schemes in those areas. We believe that the work at present being done by the State management schemes—this is no criticism of those schemes—is better and more properly the rôle not of the State but of the individual and private enterprise.
      7.35 p.m.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: My first task is the quite pleasant one of congratulating the Secretary of State on the patience, charm and skill he has exhibited in very many long hours in Committee and on Report. I included also in my congratulation the performance of the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as a lawyer of considerable distinction, has calculated what fees he would have been earning had he been putting in the same hours of work in the criminal or the civil courts. I say no more about that.
      Mr. Ross: He would not have won his case, though.
      Mr. Morgan: Despite the skill and qualities of the Under-Secretary of State,
      1676
      I am afraid that we regard his task as being a completely hopeless one. Not only was he making bricks without straw but without clay and water as well. We regard the Bill as unwholesome, its methods of operation as wholly impractical, the rationale behind it as unhealthy and dishonest, and the reasons for the Bill itself as totally unfounded.
      On Second Reading the Home Secretary put forward four main reasons for the Bill. I was not impressed by them then and I was not impressed when they were repeated by the Under-Secretary a few minutes ago. The four cornerstones of the Government's case for the Bill are these: first, that it was a wartime experiment conceived in 1915–16 and that it is high time it was discontinued; second, that the system devised then has the effect of depriving licensing justices in England Scotland of their proper jurisdiction with regard to the grant of licences for the sale and supply of liquor; third, that it created a monopoly and therefore, ipso facto, it was objectionable; and fourth, that the return on capital was inadequate and that, for that reason, it was desirable that this asset should be disposed of as a matter of commercial common sense.
      Despite 12 sittings in Committee, those cornerstones still poke themselves out of the rubble of the Government's case. Let us briefly look at them, firstly at the wartime experiment. Of course it was, in its inception, and it lasted so up to 1921, when Parliament fully considered the whole scheme in the light of the then changed circumstances and decided that this was a venture which should be placed upon a permanent foundation. It has indeed been a successful venture. The Southborough Committee, reporting in 1927, so found it to be, as did the Royal Commission on Licensing in 1931–33. I appreciate that a Commission which sat in Scotland came to a slightly different view. It is not for me to animadvert why the situation should have been so very different north of the Tweed. If Dr. Johnson were here he might have found very good reason for the different results achieved in that way.
      It is our case that it is wholly wrong and misleading to portray the present scheme as being in any way on the same basis as the wartime experiment. That experiment was brought about by a very

      1677
      severe social and national problem occasioned by the drunkenness of munitions workers at Gretna and of dockyard workers in the Cromarty Firth. Clearly anything which had been brought about in such special circumstances as those and placed upon a temporary basis could not have lasted as this scheme has for 56 years, and lasted through the tenure of Governments of various hues.
      In 1921 Parliament considered that it was right that this scheme should endure for a very long time until a future Parliament was able to show that there was good cause why it should be discontinued. The onus is clearly upon any Government who seek to do that. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will concede that the temporary wartime experiment argument was a debating point and one which was quite unworthy of them.
      The second point was equally shallow and was that justices were entitled to use their discretion and to have that finding upheld as to whether additional licences should be granted. As we well know, the power that has been vested in the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Secretary of State for Scotland is a permissive, not a mandatory, power. In any single case it lies within the authority of those two Secretaries of State to exercise their discretion in favour of the decision that has been made by the licensing justices.
      If, therefore, the Government were moved by the consideration that the licensing justices were being wrongly overridden, the solution was a simple one and lay in their own hands. No legislation was necessary to cure that. All that they had to do was to announce as a matter of change in administrative policy that from thenceforth they would regard the recommendations of the justices in a different light.
      The third point concerned their abhorrence of monopoly. This was mentioned on Second Reading and at great length in Committee. On a number of occasions the Government's attention has been drawn to the Report of the Monopolies Commission on Beer which was published in 1969. It is made very clear there that the Royal Commission utterly condemned the tied house system which was to a large extent married to the
      1678
      monopoly situation which exists in the brewing industry.
      Up to that point, we had not heard any authoritative statement by the Government to give any clue to their thinking on that problem. They had not told the House, "We accept the views of the Monopolies Commission. We say that monopoly per se is unwholesome and therefore we do not want it". Indeed it was only after this point had been rammed home time and time again that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was able to say that the Erroll Committee would include within its terms of reference the question of tied houses. If monopoly is all-important in the Government's consideration, they should have tackled first the mountain of the general problem and not the molehill of the little local situations at Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty.
      The fourth point was that of profit—that the return on profit, as we were told on Second Reading, was 4 per cent. I noticed that a totally different figure was given tonight by the Under-Secretary, or certainly figures computed on a totally different basis.
      Mr. Carlisle: I said that the figure of 4 per cent. was based on net trading profit. The amount which was handed to the Consolidated Fund and the amount of unappropriated profits which were ploughed back in further capital reduced from 4 per cent. to 1 per cent. the amount that the State received.
      Mr. Morgan: The only figure that was mentioned on Second Reading was 4 per cent. The first that we have heard about 1 per cent. is today. I have no confidence that the Government are here comparing like with like. The case put by the Home Secretary on Second Reading was, "State enterprises are returning 4 per cent. in Carlisle, Gretna and Cromarty Firth. The yearly average of the 10 biggest and most successful breweries is about 10 per cent. Therefore, accepting that as normal, it is right and necessary that these assets should be liquidated and invested to give a better return".
      The calculation which brewers make of return on capital differs from case to case. Often they resort, not to an actual valuation of the premises, but to historic

      1679
      cost, and on other occasions to a complicated formula which is worked back from the wet rent calculation. I quote from paragraph 270 of the Report of the Monopolies Commission:
      "the value"
      of licensed premises
      "has been calculated by reference to the profits expected to result from the ownership of those premises".
      That is a situation where the profit was calculated, not only on the actual valuation, not on the historic cost, not the current valuation, but on a notional figure.
      Therefore, anybody who has looked with any degree of care at these figures will take the view that it is possible in these circumstances to exercise a debating legerdemain with the figures. Figures can be culled from any of these situations dependant on the different valuation and one is able to prove any case.
      If the historic cost basis is applied, surely the figures I have here of profit and valuations on historic cost basis from 1950 to 1970 are of the utmost relevance. They range from 8 per cent. in 1969 to the highest, which was 17·7 per cent. in 1963. One thing on which we agree is that in the last three years the profits are clearly on a rising curve.
      An alternative argument of the Under-Secretary in Committee—this argument was also advanced by the Home Secretary on Second Reading—was that it is not as if we had to spend the £4·7 million at which the premises and other assets are valued at present; it is not, indeed, as if we had to borrow it at a high rate of interest; on the other hand, if we were to liquidate these premises we could say of that capital that it would notionally earn between 7 per cent. and 9 per cent. That is a fair summary of the argument advanced by the Under-Secretary in Committee.
      Even if that argument is accepted, the facts of the situation are against the Under-Secretary. But that is not half the case. It does not take capital appreciation into account. There can be nothing in the three other points that we have disposed of, so the Government are saying that the main, perhaps the sole, consideration is the necessity to do what
      1680
      is right by the taxpayer, to act in a way consistent with financial common sense, the only consideration being financial gain. If that were the consideration, one would not destroy the monopoly, because to a large extent the value of the assets turns upon the fact that they are a monopoly.
      The Government are the trustees of public assets belonging to the British people. A trustee charged with the duty of exercising his discretion as to whether to dispose of an asset must always bear in mind the question of capital appreciation. Let us imagine a person who is a trustee for sale, the executor and trustee of a will with the discretion as to whether or not to sell. He considers the investment and the return it shows. Has he not also to consider whether there is the possibility, or even the likelihood, of a substantial capital appreciation in the near future? We have heard today how the development of the smelter at Invergordon may well add very substantially to the capital value of the assets we are considering. It would be negligent of a trustee not to take cognisance of the possibility or certainty of capital appreciation. But that is exactly what the trustees are doing here. They know that there will be a substantial capital appreciation within a few years, yet in the name of their superior financial acumen they say that those assets should be frittered away in a situation where it is clear that they cannot approach their market value. I believe that the House will treat with contempt such an argument by right hon and hon. Members opposite.
      The point that has emerged throughout all these debates is that there never was any demand in any of the localities concerned for the disposal of the assets. It was not put to the people in the General Elections of 1966 or 1970 in a way in which it could be claimed that a clear mandate had been given. Even if it is claimed that the words of the Scottish Conservative manifesto at the last General Election justify such an argument, a very heavy gloss was put upon them when the present Lord Chancellor made it clear that what he was advocating was the termination of the Home Secretary's function as a publican, and transferring that jurisdiction to a public body or trust. There was no question of disposing of the assets to the brewers or any other private interest.

      1681
      In the Second Reading debate on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Act, 1952, the following words were said by a rising and very promising Conservative politician. That Bill was the Government's answer to a case made by the former Labour Government for the extension of licensed management outside the areas we are considering. This is what was said:
      "Finally, and most important of all, there is the question of local public opinion. I am quite convinced that there is no substantial public opinion in any of the districts concerned that demands State management of the public houses in the new towns. It is because this public opinion is the most important consideration of all that I particularly ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 1200.]
      The speaker was the present Home Secretary. If public opinion be the one important determinant and criterion in the extension of licensed management, it must be a very important criterion in this context. If the right hon. Gentleman is willing to bow to public opinion when it leads in one direction, he should be willing to respect it when it goes in the other.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend must be careful, or he will bring the Common Market in.
      Mr. Morgan: It is no part of my case to say that the present Government are the most sensitive towards public opinion, but I abjure all temptations in that direction.
      I turn to the argument about the involvement of the Government with the possible potential purchasers of the assets, the brewers, who in 1968 and 1969 contributed, I believe, £150,000 to the coffers of the Conservative Party. When Lord Carrington took his begging bowl round the City in 1968 and 1969 there were some very interesting results among the brewers. The contributions of those who did best among the 10 big brewers of Britain were the most niggardly. For example, Bass Charrington in 1968 contributed the paltry sum of only £450, and in 1969 only £67, whereas others were contributing in fives, sevens, tens and twelves of thousands of pounds. I do not know whether the successful companies did not regard the Conservative Party as a very wholesome investment or whether not being among those who did best is the visitation of a just fate upon those who made substantial contributions.
      1682
      I am not in a position to say that there is any direct evidence of a corrupt understanding between any individual brewer and the Conservative Party or any group of brewers and the Conservative Party. That has never been any part of my case. I say that because I have not been able to make a detailed examination of the facts. It is wrong that such allegations should be made unless proof positive can be provided, and I am not making them. But what I say is this. Here are the Government, the trustee of public assets, about to dispose of those assets. It is possible—I put it no higher—that these assets could go to people who have themselves been contributors to Tory Party funds within the last few years. The one question that I put in the House—and it is the duty of every hon. Member to put it—is whether that is coincident, whether that is consistent with the standards of public administration that we have had and do have in this country.
      Mr. J. R. Kinsey: The hon. Gentleman must also agree that there is nothing to stop these assets going also to people who have contributed to Socialist Party funds through the co-operative societies, if they make the right bid through the honest way in which we are disposing of them.
      Mr. Morgan: Of course. But I am not pretending that I am laying down one rule for one party alone. I am saying that, where there is the slightest connection, direct or indirect, between any member of the public or group of the public with any Government, then the disposal of these assets must be done in such a way that Ministers of the Crown are insulated from the possibility of the slightest involvement in that situation. I am not making any innuendo. What I am saying is that we have strict standards of public morality in Britain and that it is right and proper that these should be maintained.
      Due to those standards, charges of corruption in our public life are very few, but when they do come the test is an extremely rigorous one. It is not a question of how many tens of thousands of £s but a question of whether any consideration, however slight, has passed. I should have thought that the Government would have been delighted to have placed their Ministers in such a way as to be

      1683
      able to say that they were upholding these rigid standards.
      Mr. Tom Boardman: Will the hon. Gentleman carry the analogy further? Would he say that if the Labour Party were in Government it would be improper for one of their Ministers to take part in negotiations with the trade unions on matters such as wage levels? Would the same principle be said to apply as between the unions and the public sector?
      Mr. Morgan: I do not see that that analogy is correct. I think that it is intended more as a spear than as an analogy. It would be equally wrong for any Labour Minister to be in charge of a disposition where there was the slightest possibility that that disposition might be to a person who had contributed towards Labour Party funds. It is a question of upholding certain standards or rejecting them, and it is the choice of the Government and of the Tory Party to reject them.
      I have said that I regard this Bill as being dishonestly conceived. When the Government came to office through a freak of fortune 12 months ago, they found themselves in the position where they had to frame in a very short time propasals for a comprehensive programme. I am sure that they found how difficult it was to try to make policy out of prejudice, but they did succeed in part in devising policies dedicated to the destruction of economic planning and to placing a moratorium on regional growth. But even that was not enough for their negativism and their reaction could not be satiated by that. It was necessary to bring about some dismemberment of the public services.
      I can well imagine the Prime Minister brooding about this question in his bath in those days at the end of June last year. There was so much in the public sector that he would have wished to have grasped the opportunity to touch—coal, steel, gas, electricity, the railways, the post office and so on—but all these were matters which a Conservative Government, even one as insensitive to public opinion as this one, would not dare to grasp. But quite suddenly one can imagine the Prime Minister leaping up dripping from his
      1684
      bath, clutching himself and saying, "Eureka ! I have found it."
      So it was that a presentational exercise was arranged, an exercise that would at the same time exhibit the doctrinal consistency of present-day Tory masters while sowing the seeds of fright and insecurity amongst those who work in the public sector. But there is a further irony of this Bill. The Government have been accused of fiddling, and I believe that they have fiddled. They have fiddled their doctrinal tunes while the hopes of Rolls-Royce and U.C.S. and their satellites were burning.
      This is a macabre situation. They failed to stab the strong; instead, they slaughtered the weak. In consequence of their reactionary venom they have caused many hundreds—indeed, some thousands—of people in Carlisle and Gretna and the Cromarty Forth area to lose work and security. These people, from the head brewer to the junior temporary barmaid, have all been made sacrifices to an attempt to distract public opinion from the impetus and sterility of the Government.
      8.7 p.m.
      Mr. Tom Boardman: I must declare an interest. As I think is known, I am a director of a brewery company, which seems to be one of the interests which has to be declared in the debate.
      The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) had a difficult task. I think he had a conflict between his basic sincerity and, if I may say so, his nice-ness and the sneering arguments put forward by his hon. Friends. I think he did not come out of the compromise as happily as he, on reflection, may have hoped. Having withdrawn any imputation of any improper conduct against individuals or of any improper association between the Government and the brewery companies, he by inference continued to repeat it.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I want to emphasise that I look very generally at this matter. I have been a watchdog rather than a bloodhound. If one had conducted detailed researches it may well be that one would have been able to substantiate the charges made by my hon. Friends, but I have not looked at it at that level—just from the point of

      1685
      view of the standards of public administration in Britain. I say no more than that.
      Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman has made the position even worse. To say that one is not able to make an accusation, of corruption, because one has not had the opportunity to delve deeply enough, but that had one done so one might have been able to support the accusation, is an intolerable smear and is unworthy of an hon. Member for whom I have respect. I hope that he will withdraw that unfair reference. If he wishes to make a charge, he should make it and substantiate it and not put it in that sort of way.
      After all the irrelevancies that there have been during the two days spent debating this minor Bill on the Floor of the House, after all the abuse and personal insults from hon. Members opposite, none of which they would dare to repeat outside this Chamber, we have returned to the nub of the argument, put so well by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary. The hon. Member for Cardigan did not seem to be able to confound or dispute those arguments but he got himself lost in a lot of figures. I am sure that hon. Members found the logic of his speech difficult to follow.
      I will confine my speech mainly to the point I made on Second Reading, so that hon. Members opposite who have had plenty of opportunity to work on the arithmetic may follow the argument. The Government have an investment with a book value of about £2¼ million. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that the real value of the assets is between £4·7 million and, as one hon. Member said, £6 million. As my hon. and learned Friend said, the higher the figure the lower the return.
      Mr. Idris Owen: Does my hon. Friend recall that it was the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) who said that a figure of £10 million had been suggested?
      Mr. Boardman: That just shows the enormous disparity between the various sums that have been bandied about and the importance of having the method of valuation and disposal which is being adopted. The average profit in the last three years has been £200,000. The average amount remitted to the Consoli-
      1686
      dated Fund, the sole income going into the public Exchequer, has been £70,000 per annum. The amount repaid from the Consolidated Fund to the State management for capital purposes has been nearly equal to the total amount that has gone by way of income from State management to the Consolidated Fund.
      The net return to the taxpayer has been very low indeed. I will take the most generous presentation which is fair for the purposes of the argument, I will take an average profit of £200,000 and a value of £4·7 million.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan indicated assent.
      Mr. Boardman: I see the hon. Member nods, accepting that those are fair figures for the basis of the sum. The return on that would be about 4¼ per cent. gross. It has to be remembered that the Exchequer has received no revenue in the form of corporation tax from this venture. If hon. Gentlemen had referred to the P.I.B. report of November, 1969, they would have seen that the assessed return on capital employed in the private sector was 10 per cent. The hon. Member for Cardigan may have noted that the P.I.B.—the blue-eyed boys of hon. Gentlemen opposite—considered that that return was quite inadequate. On the strength of that return it recommended substantial increases in beer prices, which it said were necessary so that the capital investment by the industry could be effectively used for the benefit of the community and to provide an adequate return to those who had invested their money.
      In Carlisle and the other State management areas we have a return of 4¼ per cent. If we take a 10 per cent. return on £4·7 million it will be necessary to have profits of £470,000. The gross profits have averaged £200,000 so that there has been a shortfall on the return—which was considered by the P.I.B. to be inadequate—of £270,000 per annum. No wonder the Carlisle State Management Scheme was able to offer beer at a lower price than elsewhere. It was being subsidised by the taxpayers. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Carlisle, whose temperance views I respect, should echo enthusiastically the praise uttered in support of the fact that the taxpayer is subsidising the beer-drinkers.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: They are not and never have been.
      Mr. Boardman: The meat of the argument is that to achieve what the P.I.B. has acknowledged to be an inadequate return, an additional £270,000 of profit per annum would be necessary. The public sector was short of £270,000 per annum, which is the amount by which it has subsidised the beer drinkers of Carlisle.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: No.
      Mr. Boardman: The hon. Member may be able to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and disprove that argument. It is little wonder that beer was cheaper there and that the return of 4¼ per cent. is something which my right hon. Friend does not consider justifies the continuance of this scheme. It is not the right way for the nation to use its resources.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: While the hon. Member may or may not be pleading a successful case for raising the price of beer in the Carlisle scheme, may I ask him whether he appreciates that he is not making out a case for the sale of these assets? Surely a prudent trustee must take into account the prospect of capital appreciation? Will he apply his mind to that?
      Mr. Boardman: I am coming to that point. It has been said by my hon. and learned Friend that these assets will be sold by public auction or to the tenants. The valuers are being appointed. The potential growth of the area and other such factors to which the hon. Gentleman has referred will be taken into account in the valuation. The higher the value the lower is the return. It is no duty of the Government, or any other Government, to run a brewery at a subsidised rate for beer drinkers. Having declared my interest in a brewery I would add that I consider it completely wrong that beer drinkers should be subsidised in any way.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: They are subsidising you.
      Mr. Boardman: The hon. Member, from a sedentary position—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I will get up. I was saying that the beer drinkers who drink Allied Breweries' beer are subsidising the hon. Member. I have seen the returns he
      1688
      gets—thousands of pounds a year; it is these people who are subsidising him.
      Mr. Boardman: I do not propose to deal with that point. It is a matter between myself and the company. I have no shame about the job I do outside here, nor do I have any shame about the way in which I represent my constituency.
      Let me move on to the next point which the hon. Member made when he referred to the monopoly position. He was being less than fair in quoting selectively from the Monopolies Commission Report. He knows that that report made no recommendations on the lines he inferred. The Monopolies Commission Report could not recommend any change to the tied house system except in the context of a complete review of the licensing laws. As is well known to the hon. Gentleman, at an early stage the Government set up a committee to review the licensing laws.
      Mr. Elystan Morgan: I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. Paragraph 414 of the Monopolies Commission's Report says:
      "Having regard to what we have said in paragraph 395, it is particularly in England and Wales that the tied house system operates against the public interest and that a remedy for the defects of that system is called for"
      Mr. Boardman: The hon. Gentleman quoted accurately but selectively. If he will refer to paragraph 416 he will see that the Monopolies Commission was unable to make any recommendation except that there should be a complete review of the licensing system.
      It is regrettable that the Opposition have seen fit to conduct their opposition to the Bill in the way in which they have. They have made personal attacks; they have attacked an industry and many individuals who are unable to defend themselves. Perhaps the worst feature was yesterday's scraping of the barrel, and I hope that the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will take this opportunity to withdraw the implication that was clearly made when he said:
      "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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 1492.]

      1689
      The grant of licences or the refusal to grant licences is a matter for the licensing justices. The "comfortable guarantee that they will get licences" can only imply that the licensing justices have been squared. There can be no guarantee, let alone a comfortable guarantee, that the brewers will get licences before an independent and impartial licensing court. Was the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the licensing justices in these areas are anything les than fair and impartial?
      Mr. Ross: How can they be sure that they will get a licence?
      Mr. Boardman: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I will give way. The clear inference from his words yesterday was that a comfortable guarantee had been given to the brewers that they would get new licences. If the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to suggest that, I will accept it.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman knows what we debated yesterday, which was something different, and he has heard my explanation. If a brewer says that he is going to build a public house, he must have a licence. The brewers are taking an awful lot for granted in saying that they are going to do that.
      Mr. Boardman: Anyone who assumed he would get a licence would be taking an awful lot for granted—
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Member does not say how many times Allied Breweries have been refused.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir R. Grant-Ferris): Order. We cannot have a running commentary across the Floor of the House. I hope the House will listen to the hon. Member.
      Mr. Boardman: If the right hon. Gentleman intended to imply that the brewers were hoping to get licences, his remarks were unhappily phrased. The words which I have read out and his explanation left a clear imputation, which I hoped he would wish to withdraw completely, that the licensing justices would be less than impartial. We are left with this further scraping of the barrel in the way in which the case was presented yesterday.
      A considerable attack has been made on political contributions. Are the Indus-
      1690
      tries which rely upon private enterprise wrong to support the party that believes in it, and are they wrong to oppose the party which threatens to nationalise them?
      Mr. Ron Lewis: Tell us what is in the pipeline.
      Mr. Boardman: That is what contributions to the Conservative Party from industry have been aimed to do—to promote the party that believes in private enterprise, and not to promote firms' individual interests except as part of the general prosperity of the economy and the promotion of the right climate for private enterprise.
      Mr. Lewis: Lolly for the directors.
      Mr. Boardman: We on this side of the House do not attack trade unions or trade union Members by accusing them of corruption or dishonesty.
      Mr. James Sillars: Yes, you do.
      Mr. Boardman: We believe that hon. Members with an interest in and a knowledge of trade unions have a special contribution to make to debates. We do not accuse trade unions which contribute handsomely to Labour Party funds of corruptingly influencing the Labour Party when that party was in Government. We accept that pressure comes from the trade unions in various ways. It is unfortunate that the suggestion of corruption because of a political contribution has been made by hon. Members opposite, who could be far more justifiably attacked from this side if we were so unmannerly as to do so.
      The synthetic fury and cheap sneers from the benches opposite are no answer to the Bill. The Bill achieves what was clearly set out by my right hon. Friend in his Second Reading speech. It does away with the monopoly which the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), was anxious to do away with. According to Press reports he was endeavouring to find a means of abolishing the scheme and of breaking up the monopoly. That report was in the Press, and there was no denial. The intention is to stop large public resources being employed at an inadequate return to subsidise the beer drinkers of Carlisle.

      1691
      The Government intend to pull the State out of those sectors which can be managed best by private enterprise. This does not necessarily mean that this business can best be managed by the brewers, which seems to be the inference of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There will, I hope, be every encouragement to those who believe they can do better than the brewers to buy the properties which are put up for auction. I believe that the brewers would welcome the competition that would come in that way. The Bill is aimed at achieving these objects. The synthetic heat and fury which we have heard from the Opposition shows how false is their target and how small-minded and inadequate is their opposition to this Bill.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: We have just heard the hon. Member for Leicester, Southwest (Mr. Tom Bordman) and Allied Breweries in a filibustering speech championing the claims of the brewers. Though much could be said I shall be brief in my remarks, because I want to be fair to the House, to my colleagues who want an opportunity to take part in this debate, and to my constituents who will suffer more than anybody from these proposals.
      This Bill is a plum for the pie of private enterprise barons, handsome subscribers to the Tory Party funds. It will be interesting in future to read how much money from the brewers will be channelled to the Penrith and The Border constituency for the right hon. Gentleman who played his part in the Cabinet in the murder of the Carlisle and District State Management Scheme. No doubt some of these funds will be channelled through the Tory Party Central Office to Carlisle since I understand that the Tory Party in my constituency is in dire financial straits. Whatever money is channelled to that constituency by the brewers or the Tory Party, I assure the House that my seat is one of the safest in the country.
      Since the Government announced these proposals, not one single local authority in the County of Cumberland has come out in support of the Government's intention.
      Mr. Marcus Lipton: Not even the brewers.
      Mr. Lewis: No, not even the brewers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) says.
      Mr. Idris Owen: The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has extolled the virtues of the State licensing system and he has suggested that nobody in Carlisle would wish to see the system denationalised. If the State system has been such a fantastic success, how is it the peripheral authorities have not said, "Please extend this system to our areas because we want to share in this success"?
      Mr. Lewis: I was just coming to that point. I am saying that not a single local authority in Cumberland has come out in support of the Government's proposals in the Bill; but a number of local authorities in Cumberland have written to me, as I am sure they have written to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), saying that they feel it is a crying shame that the Government should put forward this Bill. Many Cumberland local authorities would like to see an extension of the principle of public enterprise in the liquor trade.
      Mr. R. B. Cant: Surely the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) must know from his great experience that local authorities are governed strictly by the ultra vires rule. If we had a more sensible local government system as exists in the Common Market, in which authorities could act in accordance with the common good, they would all have been more enthusiastic for the Carlisle experiment.
      Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend for that interjection but I will not take up his argument since I want to give other hon. Members the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am suggesting that there has hardly been a voice in Cumberland in support of what the Government are doing. The local chairman of the Tory Party in my constituency has written a letter on the lines that nobody wants to replace one monopoly by another and that nobody wishes to see either the brewery or the brew disappear. But this is what will happen under the Bill. The brewery will close and the brew in fact will disappear. We will have unemployment in Carlisle, and we already know that the unemployment figures in the area

      1693
      are increasing. In addition, people in Carlisle will have to pay higher prices for their beer and there is no guarantee that the public houses in the city will keep open. I prophesy that within five or ten years there might well be an even bigger monopoly in Carlisle than is the case at present.
      No doubt the hon. Member for Leicester, South-West knows how the brewing industry works, but no amount of juggling with words about the return on capital will wash with the majority of people in my constituency. Ever since the inception of the State management scheme, it has not once made a loss.
      I hope that I speak for Liberal opinion in the County of Cumberland when I say that. It is a shame that throughout these proceedings the voice of the Liberal Party has been absent, bearing in mind that Lloyd George was the author of the scheme as a member of a Liberal Administration.
      We have heard a great deal about barrels, and I want now to refer to the two barrels of beer which came to the House yesterday having been sent by a public-spirited gentleman in Carlisle, a Mr. John Lett. He may even be a member of the Tory Party. Certainly he is a public-spirited gentleman, and apparently he felt that hon. Members should have an opportunity to sample the State beer. He dispatched two 9-gallon drums of beer, and they arrived in London yesterday morning. I knew nothing about them in advance. Certainly I did not court the gift. But I found myself involved. The beer arrived at Smithfield Market, and it was brought to this House yesterday. Throughout last night, it remained within the precincts of the House—
      Mr. Lipton: Shame.
      Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend says, "Shame". However, he will have an opportunity, possibly next week, to sample the State beer from Carlisle—
      Mr. Lipton: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Lewis: That also applies to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      This is the end of the State management scheme, and it will be a sad day for the people of Carlisle, who suspect all the more that the Government's proposal
      1694
      is a great fiddle since, according to the terms of the Bill, there will be no report to Parliament. The only information that we shall be able to get about the disposal of the properties is by Question and Answer. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that he will be asked a great many questions.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: It may be that my hon. Friend is not quite right. Once this Bill becomes an Act, the Minister will cease to have Ministerial responsibility. The probability is that my hon. Friend will not even be able to ask the questions, since the Minister will deny Ministerial responsibility.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: I must leave the hon. and learned Gentleman to answer my hon. Friend's point. I cannot go as far as to say that. But there will be no report to Parliament about the transactions. We do not know what is to happen. We do not know, for example, whether the premises will be disposed of at market value or at a figure less than their market value. The only way that we shall be able to find out will be by question and answer. Therefore, this is a fiddle, and the Bill stinks. The people of Carlisle know it because they will eventually have to pay more for their beer. I suggest that at the next General Election, as the Government had no mandate for doing this from the County of Cumberland, even the seat of the Leader of the House could be in grave danger.
      8.40 p.m.
      Mr. Kinsey: I welcome the Bill. It will be of immense benefit to the areas concerned because they will have individual freedom returned to them. The nation will also benefit because this is of importance to tourism, particularly in the Scottish Highlands.
      The licensing and catering trade benefits mainly from the experienced touch of the individual. The houses or restaurants of private catering organisations and individual caterers are much the best. We all know of the success that comes from the flair of the individual, particularly in catering.
      The free enterprise part of the licensing trade is under handicap because there is too little individual management throughout the country. I expressed that

      1695
      opinion on Second Reading. If the free enterprise section experiences this handicap, it must be even worse when we have the dead hand of the State controlling part of an industry about which it knows very little and is so little interested in with its civil servant approach. I hope that the State staff in the Carlisle area do not serve pints as we are served with income tax forms, because they are certainly unpalatable when I receive them.
      We know that the method of disposing of the State controlled industry in Carlisle will be fair, just and above suspicion. I have referred to this before and I repeat it. The method of disposal which has been outlined to us will ensure that it is disposed of in a proper manner, I do not suppose that there will be the amount of individual control which I should like to see, but I am satisfied with the guarantee which my hon. and learned Friend gave in Committee that the managers or tenants of these houses are to be given the first option to purchase them. A similar option extends to Scotland. I am happy with that assurance. The main interests of the area and the people working within the industry will best be served by the methods of disposal outlined by my hon. and learned Friend.
      Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. Gentleman make his position clear? He has talked about managers and licensees. As an advocate of free enterprise, is he taking the view that the public houses in Carlisle to take the place of the present system will be tied or free houses?
      Mr. Kinsey: The method of disposal will ensure that the houses are not tied.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
      Mr. Kinsey: Because I understand that the managers or tenants of 40 of those houses are being given first choice to purchase them.
      Mr. Lewis: Where will they get the beer from?
      Mr. Kinsey: From whatever brewery moves into the area. They are not tied to any brewery within the area. There is a wide area from which they can draw.
      1696
      An individual manager has a better chance to deal with the tied brewery system. If I had a free house I should take the choice of beers which my customers preferred. That is what will happen in these areas, because wise management will prevail.
      I am delighted that the Minister met the request made by both sides of the House to ensure that as many people as possible could buy their properties. This will be most beneficial in the Highlands, because the individual touch, the making of on-the-spot decisions, and careful attention to the needs of the customer, will come out tops and meet the requirements of tourists in that area.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Where, in any part of London, can the hon. Gentleman go into a Truman's house and buy a Whit-bread beer, or go in to a Watney's house and buy a Truman's beer? The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the pubs are tied to the hilt.
      Mr. Kinsey: It seems that the hon. Gentleman goes round looking for nothing but Truman's or Watney's beer. There are other breweries. I can get what I consider to be one of the best beers, a Midlands beer, Mitchells and Butler, in the centre of London. I can get a Guinness anywhere in London. I have a choice. If I care to go around, I can get whatever beer I want. That is the sort of thing to which the Opposition blind themselves. That they should deny something in one area, yet want to see it in another, seems to be a twisted argument in any case. There is no point in saying that they want only one beer throughout the country, and in the next breath ask where they can get a different beer. It does not make sense at all.
      Mr. Idris Owen Mr. Idris Owen rose—
      Mr. Kinsey: No. I would rather be helped by my enemies than by my friends.
      We are all very good natured at the moment, but one of the things that has worried me throughout the proceedings on the Bill, from the Second Reading debate, through to the Committee stage, Report stage and now Third Reading, has been the smear campaign conducted by hon. Gentlemen opposite in speech after speech. It has been apparent in every Amendment, and it was started by someone who, before I came to the House,

      1697
      I considered to be a highly respected and responsible person. I am thinking of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). He started this innuendo and smear campaign which has been taken up and bandied about, but it has done the Opposition no good at all.
      The smear has been repudiated by the trade papers, which have taken a careful interest in this debate. The Morning Advertiser has been quoted because of its individual character. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have quoted it more often than they have quoted HANSARD. It has been almost the Bible of the Opposition throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
      Mr. Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say "Bible"?
      Mr. Kinsey: I said "almost".
      That is the sort of thing that has been happening. If that is the standard of the Opposition's misrepresentation of every other issue, the country is being ill-informed by them. If ever Scottish Labour Members say, "Look how well we are doing in Scotland", I can only reply that the Scottish people are having to put up with a tremendous amount of misrepresentation. It has also been said that certain Clauses will cause unemployment, but the Bill will increase employment opportunities. Individual management will ensure that the trade propers as it did not before. Individual concern for the customer will tell.
      This must be a concern for the temperance movement in the North, which the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) told us had passed a resolution. A temperance society passing a resolution in favour of State beer against private enterprise beer—
      Mr. Ron Lewis: It is the principle.
      Mr. Kinsey: I can imagine the headline—"Temperance Movements say State Beer is Best".
      Mr. Lewis: The temperance movement and the licensed trade will be working hand in hand when the Enroll Report is published.
      Mr. Kinsey: That sounds an unholy alliance. The movement seems to be doing this because it wants more use of public houses. I assume that it is not supporting a brewery but simply one system against another. Better sales of
      1698
      beer because of better management means better employment.
      I pay tribute to the two Ministers, who have been fair and courteous to the Opposition under the greatest provocation. They have brought in a Bill which is fair, just and above suspicion. They have given a little more freedom to a few more people and that is why the Socialists do not like it. This means service. No matter how good the State, the individual is much better.
      8.53 p.m.
      Mr. James Lamond: I did not serve on the Committee, but I wanted to inform my constituents who are puzzled at the high priority given to this Bill when they are so upset by the other consequences of the Tory Party—rising unemployment and prices increasing daily. I am as astonished as my constituents.
      One likes to be charitable towards hon. Members opposite and to search among their speeches for a motive which deserves examination. One or two of them have tried to explain that the return on the capital invested is not high enough to justify the continuance of public ownership. But if the complaint was that too little profit was being made because the beer was too cheap, I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have had no compunction about ordering a rise in price.
      The Government seem prepared to accept sharp increases in the price of food to smooth our way into the Common Market, but rather than increase the price of beer in these establishments they will go through the procedure of taking a Bill through Parliament and dismantling this State management system.
      Is there any truth in the suggestion that there is corruption involved in the Bill? As one who had experience of local government before coming to Parliament, I was surprised on arriving here to discover that hon. Members have freedom to take part in discussing and voting on matters in which they clearly have a financial interest.
      Parliament lays down in legislation relevant to members of local authorities that they should not take part in and vote on matters in which they may have only a slight financial interest. Until recently any resident in a council house

      1699
      was deemed to have a deep financial interest in the level of rents, and it was only after an application was made to the Secretary of State for Scotland that this rule was relaxed.
      Is it not strange that we in this place have no inhibitions about this, particularly when we may have a considerable financial interest? I am not prepared to go so far as to question the motives of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that to ensure that they will not be accused of such conduct, they should declare their interest when taking part in a discussion of this type.
      I was not a member of the Standing Committee that examined the Bill, and, being conscious of the fact that many hon. Members who took part in the earlier debates on the Measure are anxious to speak, I have kept my remarks as brief as possible.
      8.57 p.m.
      Mr. Gray: I am pleased to speak following the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). Although he was not a member of the Committee, it is right that he should have contributed to this debate in view of the interest which I know he has in the Bill.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite have exaggerated this issue, particularly in Committee. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) regaled us at that stage with some of the results that would flow from this legislation, but I dealt at an early stage with some of his utterances and I do not believe that there was much in the various suggestions he made.
      I am bound to consider the Bill from a constituency point of view because in the Cromarty Firth area the State management set-up is quite different from that which exists in Carlisle, about which we have heard a great deal.
      On a number of occasions in Committee, I ask the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) the straightforward question, if his party felt so strongly about this, would they go so far as to say that they would renationalise those hotels if returned to power? The hon. Member for Fife, West—I do not want to misquote him; I am sure that he would not let me—went further and frequently
      1700
      called out, "Yes, and a lot more too". As long as the people realise that the object of the Labour Party is to nationalise as many hotels as possible—if they are sincere in what they have been saying—that is all right, because we know where we stand.
      As for my constituency in the Highlands of Scotland, I have great hopes for that area and for the future of the Highlands, not only with the industrial developments which may well take place in the Easter Ross area around Invergordon but for the future potential for tourism. I see the hotels which are being denationalised—that is what is happening—playing a vital part under the control of private individuals, family groups and small people who want to get on and who want to develop the Highlands for tourism. I do not accept the suggestion made from the benches opposite that the brewers will have a bonanza in the Highlands. That is not the case.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: It is in Carlisle.
      Mr. Gray: I would not deign to argue with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) about conditions which pertain in his constituency. I am taking, perhaps, the purely parochial view. Throughout the Committee stage, the hon. Member will agree that we had to listen to a great deal about Carlisle. I make no apology for talking for the Highlands. These hotels have a vital part to play and I am sure that we can look forward to a prosperity in the Highlands in which the hotels and individuals will share as a result of the Bill.
      Mention has been made of local courts. I agree that in the past local courts have taken the decision that a licence could be granted here and should be granted there, and it has been the Secretary of State for Scotland's prerogative to decide whether to confirm the decision. Secretaries of State of successive Governments have decided against, and a great many of those people who have received local approval have been disappointed. The hon. Member for Oldham, East, having considerable experience of local government, will realise what I mean about local licensing courts. The situation was that local licensing courts agreed that a licence was desirable for this or that local hotel but those decisions were not implemented by the Secretary of

      1701
      State, with one or two very minor exceptions.
      As we move towards an era in which we shall have reorganisation of local government, it is only right, if we give local magistrates a power which they administer with very great consideration, honesty and trust, that that power is brought to fruition.
      In my view of the future of the Highlands, I like to think beyond just Invergordon and the Easter Ross area. At Invergordon at one time we had a massive naval base into which the Home Fleet entered annually. This provided a tremendous number of jobs and it was a wonderful situation. As the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) rightly pointed out, this was during the first war and one of the reasons why the then Bill was introduced was the excessive drunkenness which occurred. As the years have passed and we have progressed, I would hope that drunkenness in the Highlands is now within reasonable proportions. I do not think that that reason exists any longer. If there is a degree of drunkenness in the Highlands from time to time, it is contributed to by incomers to just as great an extent as it is by locals. A request was made in the House yesterday that pubs in the Highlands should be opened on Sundays. Those who live there would deplore that. We attract tourists because the conditions up there are very different; and long may they remain so.
      There has been much reference to the brewers. Let us look beyond my constituency to Aviemore. I remember Aviemore when it was a desolate little village. It is now a thriving concern providing employment for hundreds of people. It has flourishing hotels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Incomers."] Many of them are. I did not decry incomers. I said that they had contributed to drunkenness. One of the firms of much-despised brewers has contributed handsomely to the prosperity of the village.
      My constituency has facilities for skiing which are far in advance of anything which Aviemore can provide. I refer to the slopes of Ben Wyvis. I have been urging the Highlands and Islands Development Board to agree to the development of Ben Wyvis, to try to get a developer to move in and create in that area something like there is at Avie-
      1702
      more. It may well be that this would be a brewer, but it is outside the State management area. The brewers have not nibbled to any extent anywhere else in my constituency outside the State management area. So I do not share the difficulties which have been expressed for the smaller hotels.
      I welcome the Government's decision as it affects my constituency. I can see great prosperity developing and I want to see local people participating in it.
      9.3 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Cocks: I shall be brief because not only my colleagues but also the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) are anxious to contribute, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Chapman) will no doubt wish to speak as one of the most loquacious members of the Committee.
      I have previously spoken of the Under-Secretary's courage in tackling the task which he has been given. However, he had a dose of the cold feet tonight, because he loosed off a blunderbuss attack on the members of the Committee for scurrilous accusations.
      During the whole of the Committee proceedings I did not mention the Lord President of the Council. The only time I mentioned the Home Secretary was to say that he was a man of such integrity and his conscience was so tender that he had been slinking around the House for weeks with a look of extreme guilt on his face because of the job the Cabinet had given him to do. I mentioned the Lord Chancellor favourably, because he had advanced an idea which has been brushed aside, that control should be vested in local people.
      I have had no satisfactory answer to the information I was given when I visited Carlisle; namely, that the brewers were up looking round the premises—casing the joint, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) would say—shortly after the General Election. This calls for some explanation, because if the system has been running for 55 years, why a week after a General Election do people appear?
      It is unfortunate that in the short time I have been a Member this is the second Bill that I have seen through all its

      1703
      stages which has dismantled the work of the Labour Government. The other was that dismantling the Land Commission. The Government had given a clear commitment that they would do that if elected; but there is no such justification for this Bill.
      The Under-Secretary again spoke about the Bill's removing the restriction on sale and supply by the Secretary of State—in other words, breaking up the State monopoly and removing restrictions on freedom of choice. But there are very serious dangers of monopoly in the brewing trade. In my constituency 94 per cent. of the public houses are controlled by Courage. At one time I thought the Government might be sympathetic towards dealing with that situation, but the resolution is weakening.
      The Bill is inadequate because it does not give us the guarantees we have sought for the staff or the conditions for sale to tenants which will ensure that free houses can be created. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Bar (Mr. Kinsey) is anxious to see a situation in which people will be able to establish free houses and keep them free, but there is no guarantee of that. Those public houses may well fall into the brewers' hands, and that is undesirable because it will simply replace one monopoly with another.
      With regard to the disposal of property, Clause 4 talks about moneys being paid out on expenses incurred. The Under-Secretary has gone out of his way to try to furnish us with information on certain points throughout the passage of the Bill. He spoke tonight of the commission which would be paid to the estate agents, varying between 2¼ and 2¾ per cent. I have not had an opportunity to check this, but I suspect that it is very near the going rate. With an enormous block of property for which purchasers do not have to be sought, when there are no overheads over and above what the estate agent's business is already carrying, and with a number of ready-made sales, we hope, to sitting tenants, that figure may well be excessive. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will excuse us if we press him on the matter on another occasion.
      Although the hon. and learned Gentleman has tried to be helpful, we have been
      1704
      handicapped by a serious lack of information about beer. The price of beer means nothing unless we know something about the tax paid on it.
      If the Bill has done one thing it has focused attention on these matters. Whilst we may be dissatisfied about the whole question of the disposal of State management, at least the Bill has brought to the surface a number of issues that we can pursue at other times.
      9.14 p.m.
      Mr. Idris Owen: We have come almost to the end of a long series of debates on the Bill. We have had many Committee sittings in which the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has spoken. Once he spoke in a fascinating way for almost an hour and a half about the specific gravity of beer. There were more important issues at stake in the country. What has interested me more than anything is the magnificent rearguard action by Labour hon. Members in fighting off the Government's decision to denationalise the State pubs. They have spoken eloquently, with sincerity and grim determination, but let us not overlook the fact that the argument is basically philosophical. It is really ideological.
      We are here engaged in the ritual slaughter of one of the sacred cows of the Socialist State. Hon. Members opposite will fight to the death to restrict us from doing so. If I were a Socialist supporting the Marxist philosophy, I would fight equally hard. But our philosophy is different. We believe in a free enterprise capitalist State, and we say that it is no part of the Government to be running licensed premises in Carlisle or Scotland. We, as supporters of free enterprise, of consumer choice, believe that the great divide here is whether it shall be the State or whether it shall be free enterprise. We are quite happy to allow the public to judge whether they prefer the State to provide their beer or whether there should be freedom of choice through the capitalist system.
      The hon. Member for Fife, West has been honest and sincere—more sincere than most. He is true to his principles. He is an out-and-out Socialist and says that he will not be satisfied until he sees all the pubs and licensee premises nationalised.
      Mr. William Hamilton: The brewers.
      Mr. Owen: The brewers as well. One advantage which we have on this side is that we face the economic facts of life of the Carlisle system. There is no gainsaying the fact that economically it has not been a success. But that is not surprising, because very few State enterprises are economically successful. The monumental losses sustained by many State enterprises have caused great economic problems, and it is not surprising to find the State system in Carlisle an abysmal failure financially.
      One aspect has not been mentioned in the debate. I ascertained in my visit to the brewery that it had a bottling plant 17 years old and could not afford to replace it. I was told by the management that it would cost almost £350,000 to replace it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) would be good enough to inform me how long his brewery's bottling plants last. I am sure they are not that age. But this one in Carlisle has had to be retained for 17 years. It was breaking down. The engineers were having to work frantically on it.
      Mr. Tom Boardman: Is this liability in addition to the £482,000 capital commitment the brewery showed on its last accounts?
      Mr. Owen: Indeed it is. The brewery did not even introduce a new bottling plant in the estimates because the resources are not there. If the State management used all the slender resources it had to redevelop its licensed premises, it would find itself without adequate resources. The scheme has not been the success that hon. Members opposite would like to suggest. What they are dismayed about is that these premises are about to pass from the State to private hands. That is the great divide. Let us be honest about it. I do not admire hon. Members opposite any the less for their case, but let us recognise the issue for what it is. This is the State sacred cow and it is being sacrificed. It has never given very much milk, and when cows do not give very much milk they are slaughtered.
      Mr. William Hamilton: Not if they are sacred.
      Mr. Owen: Another interesting point which has not emerged in the debate is the capacity of the brewery, which is 1,500 barrels a week. It is down to 1,000 barrels a week. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) has not: mentioned why this is so. The truth of the matter is that there has been a considerable growth in Carlisle, and the peripheral areas, of working men's clubs, political clubs, social clubs, British Legion clubs. The brewers have been able to offer a facility that the resources of the State management scheme could never offer and that is loans for the construction of clubs at relatively low rates of interest, almost free of interest—[Interruption.]—Yes, I know in my own constituency that my local football club got a £30,000 loan free of interest from a brewery company and this has happened in Carlisle. The result is that the management scheme has lost the retail outlets.
      Mr. Michael Cocks: The hon. Member is a fair man. Would he not accept this point, which must have been put to him when he visited the brewery, that if there had been no restriction on the area in which the brewery could sell perhaps it would have been working to full capacity?
      Mr. Owen: Conversely I would say that if it had not enjoyed its monopoly position since 1915 it would have been in an even worse position than it is now. It had the disadvantage of restriction but the supreme advantage of monopoly and it did not prosper as a result. It is in a parlous financial state when we add things up. No one will cavil at the expressions of opinion from the hon. Member for Carlisle because his constituents will always support him as they are getting cheap beer. Anyone who can get cheap beer at the expense of the taxpayer is bound to support him. I believe that the majority of people will breathe a sigh of relief when this operation has been denationalised.
      9.22 p.m.
      Mr. William Hamilton: We are moving towards closing time and I want to say a few pleasant sentences before I come to the subject matter of my speech.
      I want to congratulate the Ministers for their courtesy and fairness, sometimes

      1707
      under provocation. It is not their fault that they were given this filthy job to do. They expect that. They are in the same position as the council dustman and the sewer-man: the council dustman must sweep the streets, while the sewer-man has to go down into the sewers and look at all kinds of things including French letters. I felt that the hon. Gentleman was trying to give this Bill a cloak of respectability. He reminded me of a prostitute in Piccadilly protesting her purity, virginity and morality. She too has got a job to do. One looks around Piccadilly and sees this sort of thing, although I have not had the experience of enlisting their support and I could not distinguish one from another.
      Listening to the Minister this afternoon was like listening to a parish priest who was intent on doing something for the good of the country. He rather chided us about the wild allegations we had made about corruption. The last thing in the world I would want to do would be to charge the Minister with corruption, on this or any other matter. But I should like to put a few facts on the record and let them speak for themselves. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) has acknowledged that he is a director of Allied Breweries. We have not been told what his fee is for doing the job, but whatever it is he is overpaid. I should not like to ask him what it was, but the people who are drinking his beer are paying his fees, and they are not getting their money's worth.
      The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) owns El Vino, which the fellows up in the Press Gallery frequent and no doubt patronise adequately. The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) is the chairman and managing director of the Costa Brava Wine Company and another wine agency. The vice-chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), is a director of the Ferndale Brewery Co. Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Webb's, which is part of the vast Charrington group. I understand that since 1971 he has been a director of Bass Charrington Sales Ltd. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Hall-Davis) is the chairman of Bass Charrington and a director of the Bass Charrington Brewery. The
      1708
      hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin), now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, is the ex-adviser to the Distillers Group.
      I merely put these facts on the record. They are all perfectly honourable gentlemen. When the Secretary of State for the Environment came to office, the first firm smack of government he gave us was to sanction the building of the Whitbread Brewery in the green belt in Lancashire. He did that for perfectly honourable reasons, and I would not suggest that these were corrupt practices. They are all hon. Gentlemen, and that is why we call them so.
      The people in the country are bound to ask why the Prime Minister, who said that his policies must be judged in a five-year Parliament, should choose in a first year to flog off a few State pubs and hotels to the paymasters of the Tory Party. It might be pure coincidence. We all have our priorities and our philosophies.
      The philosophy of the Tory Party was explained by Winston Churchill many years ago. In Committee I quoted a speech made by a remarkable man, Jimmy Hudson, who represented Ealing, North, whom many of us remember for his ardent temperance, on the same basis as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), and equally provocative and talkative. Speaking on the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill, 1952, he referred to the venal and furtive pressure of the liquor trade on pliant Government, particularly Conservative Governments. He said it was a well-known story and that nobody had commented upon it more vigorously than the then Leader of the Conservative Party, who was Winston Churchill. He referred to a speech made by Winston Churchill in Nottingham, in which he said:
      "As for interference the Tory Party had no policy except to make sure of the public house vote."
      Speaking of Mr. Balfour's Government, Winston Churchill said:
      "They had a capacity to sneer at every philanthropic enthusiasm while flinging sops from time to time to brewers and others of their friends."
      In another speech in Manchester, Winston Churchill referred to

      1709
      "The open hand of the Exchequer and the open door of the public house",
      and spoke of:
      "a brewers dray blocking the road to progress."
      These are not my words, but the words of the most distinguished Tory that ever lived—and they are words about the Tory Party.
      We have now got to the closing stages of this Bill. The champagne corks will be popping in Upper Clyde tonight; 120,000 unemployed in Scotland will be dancing outside the labour exchanges now that this Bill is to go on the Statute Book. The "better tomorrow" is just around the corner in Gretna and Cromarty. The Government are ending this scheme which has run for 60 years. Even if it might not have done very well in terms of profits, which is the only yardstick by which the Tory Party measures success, it did not do any harm and was very popular in the areas in which it operated. Nothing has been done by any Government about this scheme for 60 years. It is only now that this action is taken by the present Government, which is the most wicked, most inefficient, most unpopular, and I believe the most corrupt for a century or more. This is why they have brought in this Bill.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Ross: We have had a very short run on this Bill. In Committee Conservative members were reluctant to come to the support of their Ministers. I have never known such reluctant legislators in my life. They had voted on Second Reading with a certain amount of enthusiasm, probably greater than that of the Home Secretary; but when it came to Committee, they could not even turn out to save the Government on the issue of how many mornings we were to sit. The whole of the time they left it to their hon. Friends the Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office and the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture at the Scottish Office to carry on.
      I should like to have seen serving on that Committee the representative of the Allied Breweries since he is so knowledgeable about these matters. Had he been on the Committee, I am sure we would have had some fertile discussions and
      1710
      arguments. He could have conducted his investigations into my ideas about the brewers and the trade rather than have left his remarks until these later stages. It was quite a relief today to see him expanding a little bit, but we heard very little new.
      Today we heard retold by the Under-Secretary of State the Second Reading speech which had been delivered by his right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Carlisle: It was a good speech.
      Mr. Ross: The Under-Secretary of State cannot say anything else, since he was repeating the same arguments that had been put forward by the Home Secretary, though not in such a complete form. However this is not Second Reading. This is Third Reading. We are concerned with what is in this Bill. We are not dealing with the kind of stuff that we heard put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey); at one stage we even managed to get on the slopes of Ben Wyvis. The hon. Gentleman talked about anything but what is in the Bill. I want to talk about what is in the Bill and by implication what is not in the Bill, and I shall state our reasons for voting against it.
      Clause 1 is one of the most ridiculously-worded Clauses I have ever read in a Statute. We tried to convey our feelings about this provision in Committee but the Government, who fielded a second eleven, were determined at the start to resist even small drafting Amendments. When one reads Clause 1, one sees such expressions as "shall be abolished" and "is hereby repealed". It is just a bit of legal nonsense. It is the kind of provision that one expects to see in a consequential Schedule.
      Then we come to the real meat in Clause 2, which deals with the way in which the assets are to be disposed of, though I defy anyone to discover from it what is to be done. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer, and he must know that what is said by a Minister by way of interpretation of a Statute is not accepted in a court of law. If he does not know that, someone should tell him. What counts is what is in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which should lead the hon. Member for Perry Barr or anyone else to describe what is to be

      1711
      done about the disposal of these assets as
      "fair, just and beyond suspicion."
      We tried to spare the hon. and learned Gentleman the embarrassment of it being left to him and to the Secretary of State for Scotland to dispose of these assets as they thought expedient in the public interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman can tell us as much as he likes about what he intends to do about it. But when, eventually, these assets are sold, if they are sold, they may be used for any other purpose, the presumption being that they may not be sold. Everything depends on the manoeuvres of those who want to get the best bargain. The brewers will not necessarily meet any prices, and it must not be forgotten that there is nothing to stop them ganging up. The embarrassment will be that of the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland if it is not found possible to realise even what was suggested in 1967 as a tentative valuation. I think that it was £4·8 million.
      The Bill says that the Secretaries of State must sell, but what will happen if they sell in the way about which we have been told? Imagine a single city where every public house has to be sold. The Minister tells us that it will all be wrapped up within a year. That is what we should be talking about on Third Reading. How can he give any guarantees to this House or to the country that this is the right way to get the best price for the assets?
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Corruption.
      Mr. Ross: Over 340 properties, including 170 public houses and the like are all to be sold in virtually the same period. What a buyer's market that will be.
      We have not been given any indication about whether they will be sold to one buyer. Anyone reading what the Home Secretary said on Second Reading will realise that this is not ruled out. He spoke about the difficulties of trying to run a concession like this within a limited geographical area. The implication of that is that it will be controlled by someone who has a very much wider area. We are told that one of the reasons for the Bill is to break up a monopoly. However, what may happen is that we exchange one
      1712
      monopoly for another, and one which has just been condemned by the Monopolies Commission.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: The brewers say, "We are only here for the beer—and the money".
      Mr. Ross: The Monopolies Commission had this to say in its Report on the Supply of Beer:
      "We conclude that the conditions we have found to prevail operate and may be expected to operate against the public interest."
      The people of Carlisle will be delighted to know that they are to have wished upon them a system of beer supply which the Monopolies Commission says is acting and is likely to act against the public interest. That is for a fairly obvious reason. This Report is now out of date. My figures are not as good as they should be. The figures given here, on the then up-to-date information, show that in England and Wales 86 per cent. of all public houses were controlled by the brewers. The figure for Scotland—but it is increasing—is 14 to 16 per cent. The Report also states that in Scotland the brewers' ownership of licensed houses has increased somewhat in recent years.
      There is nothing in the Bill which can give any satisfaction to the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) or justify the plaudits of the hon. Member for Perry Barr that we shall see independent thriving management by local people. Far from it.
      Apparently we shall get service which we have not had before. In The Times of Monday, 26th April, concern is expressed about beer and its quality as a result of the Bill to which the Tories are hoping to give a Third Reading tonight. This is the kind of satisfaction which we shall get in Carlisle, Gretna and the North of Scotland:
      "'The public will bloody well drink what we tell them to drink ', a brewery representative is alleged to have told one of his company's licensees not so long ago."
      I have never seen that denied—
      Mr. Ron Lewis: Honest government !
      Mr. Ross:—and we have the Monopolies Commission to back it up.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: Allied Breweries.
      Mr. Ross: The Minister has climbed on his high horse and said that right

      1713
      from the start we have made wild allegations and smear after smear. What we have said is very tame compared with what was said by Winston Churchill about the conspiracy of the Tory Party and the brewers. One of my hon. Friends has saved me the trouble of quoting what he said. But the Tory Party has become coy about it. In 1916 when this was going through the House, the then Home Secretary, Lloyd George, was constantly interrupted by the then Member for the town in which I live, Ayr, Sir George Younger. He said that he was speaking for the brewers. He was rather proud to be speaking for them. He made no attempt to conceal it. But now that does not exist. We have this long list of contributions to the Tory Party. I think that Allied was very stingy.
      Mr. Ron Lewis: It was probably the first instalment.
      Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) should be ashamed of himself. No wonder he is still on the back benches. It is a mere £1,000 a year, unless Allied's subsidiaries are feeding it in elsewhere. Hon. Gentlemen opposite should appreciate that they have to live with their connection with this trade.
      I am sure that the Home Secretary did not want the Bill. We would never have introduced such a Bill. It is interesting to note that in the year 1952, when the Tories took office after the 1945–51 Labour Government, one of their first acts was to take away similar powers from the new town corporations. How responsive they are. It may be a coincidence, of course, that what they do is what the brewers want.
      They have been wrong about the Bill. I remind them of what Lloyd George said on 29th April, 1915. [Interruption.] What is wrong with that?
      "Every Government that has ever touched alcohol has burnt its fingers in its lurid flames."—[OFFICAL REPORT, 29th April, 1915; Vol. 71, c. 864.]
      I do not know whether they have any fingers left after the lurid flames into which they have been putting them on the Clyde, Rolls-Royce, and everywhere else. This is not one of the Bills of which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite can be very proud. It really is sad that a party facing all the problems
      1714
      that it is at the moment should race in with this Measure. Nothing will convince us that it was brought in, not because the right hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce it, but because of outside pressures on his party.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: We listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but he said very little that was new. The only small bit of extra interest that he brought to the debate was to be found in the geography lesson that he gave us, but even then he was wrong, because he put Ben Wyvis in the wrong place. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to look at the map. He will see that the boundary of the State management district goes through the summit of Ben Wyvis. If he looks at the map, he will see which side of Ben Wyvis he is talking about. As usual, he finds himself talking on the wrong side.
      The right hon. Gentleman spoke this evening about the Government's second eleven taking part in the Committee stage of the Bill, and about how they were unable to accept any of the arguments put to them. All I can say is that, in the face of the third-rate arguments presented to us, it is no wonder that the right hon. Gentleman had so little success.
      Tonight we have heard little more than the gramophone record that we heard during the whole of the Committee stage, almost regardless of what Amendments were being considered, or what Clause was being debated. We heard the same record on Report too. The only good thing tonight—and I welcomed it—was that we had with us the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), and one or two others. The gramophones were changed, but I wish that the record could have been changed, too.
      The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan) began his speech very courteously, and thanked all those who had taken part in the Committee stage of the Bill. May I, from this side of the House, express my thanks to right hon. and hon. Members opposite for their help during a long Committee stage. We may have differed in our views, but we at least learned to respect each other's point of view, despite what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William

      1715
      Hamilton) may say, and I think that this evening we have all obtained a considerable amount of enjoyment from the debate.
      Mr. Charles Loughlin: Talk about the Bill.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman should have been here for the Report stage. We should have liked to hear him. I shall be delighted to talk about what is in the Bill.
      There is one matter that is important to the Bill, and I know that it is of considerable interest to the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis), because he raised it, and that is the position of the staff in the State management districts. I repeat the tribute that has been paid by my right hon. and hon. Friends to the hard work and loyalty of those who have worked in the State management scheme. Nothing in the Bill is a reflection on the part they have played. I repeat, also, the assurances that were given in Committee, and on Report, that those who become redundant will be entitled to proper compensation and redundancy payments.
      Having said that, I now come to the question of jobs. Unfortunately, we have been exposed to arguments of extravanganza and exaggeration. If hon. Members really wanted to be believed, they could have put their arguments more moderately.
      I would congratulate the hon. Member for Fife, West on introducing one new set of so-called facts. One only has to imagine our casting the same aspersions on his hon. Friends who happen to have connections with the trade union movement to realise how completely out of place his remarks were. They were intended as smear and innuendo.
      The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock criticised some of my hon. Friends—he might well have criticised some of his own—for not dealing with what was in the Bill. He spent three minutes on what was in the Bill and then reverted to a Second Reading speech. I am delighted to deal with what is in the Bill. One effect of the Bill which has been ignored by hon. Members opposite is to restore to local licensing justices the freedom to work in the way that such justices
      1716
      work in the rest of the country. The Bill is about freedom. In this important matter, all licensing decisions should be taken locally by those directly concerned.
      One thing which has been uppermost in the minds of hon. Members opposite in their desire to keep this power in the hands of the Secretary of State is the philosophy that Whitehall and St. Andrew's House know best and that local people cannot be trusted to carry out their proper functions. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) was right. The nub of the Labour Party's opposition to the Bill is that we are slaughtering one of their sacred cows. It is so outmoded that it is no longer sacred, and when something is no longer needed, there is nothing ritual about its slaughter—
      Mr. Ron Lewis Mr. Ron Lewis rose—
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No, I will not give way.
      Mr. Lewis: Answer the question.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am delighted to answer.
      Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman is taking a long time.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I was asked to deal with what is in the Bill and I am doing so. I am delighted to come to the hon. Member's point. The important thing is that merely because we are restoring freedom to local licensing authorities hon. Members oppose the Bill—
      Mr. Lewis Mr. Lewis rose—
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I now come to the hon. Member's point. He asked me whether we shall be reporting to the House throughout the restoration of freedom in these areas—
      Mr. Lewis: And on the progress of the sale and the valuation.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I repeat what we said in Committee, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will report to the House as necessary—
      Mr. William Hamilton: What does that mean?
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith:—in the course of the disposal of the assets, and certainly at the end, when the disposal is completed.
      Mr. Lewis: There is nothing about that in the Bill.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I certainly give that assurance.
      One question has remained completely unanswered by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was totally ignored by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock. I refer to the intentions of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the unlikely event of the Labour Party being returned to power. His right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said on 20th April last:
      "We shall not be bound … by our conventional basis of compensation".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th April, 1971; Vol. 815, c. 985.]
      Throughout the Committee stage, on Report and at this stage the right hon. Gentleman who has been leading for the Opposition has consistently ignored this question.
      Mr. Lewis: Nor was this Bill in the Conservative manifesto.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Hon. Gentlemen opposite must realise that the language used by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East on that occasion not only put at risk the valuation which might be placed on these properties—and in that he behaved irresponsibly—but indicated that his party would behave in a disreputable way at a future date.
      Mr. Lewis: Carry on. The lion. Gentleman has only three minutes to last out.
      Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Another main advantage of the Bill lies in the fact that we are dealing with areas in Scotland which have tremendous potential for tourist development. In the southwest of Scotland, with the M6 motorway

      Division No. 395.]

      AVES

      [10.0 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Biffen, John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Burden, F. A.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Blaker, Peter

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

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

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Body, Richard

      Carlisle-, Mark

      Astor, John

      Boscawen, Robert

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Channon, Paul

      Awdry, Daniel

      Bowden, Andrew

      Chapman, Sydney

      Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Braine, Bernard

      Churchill, W. S.

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Bray, Ronald

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Batsford, Brian

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

      Clegg, Walter

      Bell, Ronald

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cooke, Robert

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Coombs, Derek

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

      Bryan, Paul

      Cooper, A. E.

      Benyon, W.

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

      Cordle, John

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Buck, Antony

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      way having been completed as far as Gretna, with the development of roads within Scotland and with the increasing number of people from the Midlands of England looking for places in which to spend their leisure time, there is tremendous tourist growth potential in the south-west of Scotland. This is potential which the local people will be glad to grasp, and what is true of south-west Scotland is equally true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Gray) said, of other areas. I have no doubt that the people of Scotland will be glad to take advantage of the opportunities which this Bill offers.
      The State management scheme was introduced as an experiment. It has been going on for a great many years. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have produced no evidence to show that on grounds of financial viability or moral liability—from the point of drunkenness and so on—it should continue.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite are living in the past. The right hon. Member for Kilmarnock had to quote Lloyd George in 1916 in an attempt to justify his case. We have been listening to this antediluvian monster from Kilmarnock but, like all monsters, he belongs to the picture books. His monstrosities are out of date and, like this experiment in State management, all his remarks are of no effect whatever. All his antics, moanings and, to borrow a word from the hon. Member for Fife, West, outpourings belong to the museum and have no relevance to Britain and Scotland today.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 251.

      Cormack, Patrick

      James, David

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

      Costain, A. P.

      Jenkin, Patrick

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Critchley, Julian

      Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Crouch, David

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jopling, Michael

      Raison, Timothy

      Curran, Charles

      Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Redmond, Robert

      d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

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

      Kilfedder, James

      Rees, Peter (Dover)

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Dixon, Piers

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Dodds-Parker, Douglas

      Kinsey, J. R.

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

      Kirk, Peter

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Drayson, G. B.

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Knox, David

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lampton, Antony

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lane, David

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Rost, Peter

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

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Royle, Anthony

      Emery, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Farr, John

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

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Fell, Anthony

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

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Longden, Gilbert

      Sharples, Richard

      Fidler, Michael

      Loveridge, John

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

      Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

      Luce, R. N.

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Simeons, Charles

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      MacArthur, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & 'Lmington)

      Foster, Sir John

      McLaren, Martin

      Speed, Keith

      Fowler, Norman

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Spence, John

      Fox, Marcus

      McMaster, Stanley

      Sproat, lain

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

      Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Gardner, Edward

      Maddan, Martin

      Stokes, John

      Gibson-Watt, David

      Madel, David

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Sutcliffe, John

      Glyn, Dr. Alan

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Tapsell, Peter

      Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

      Marten, Neil

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Mather, Carol

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

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maude, Angus

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Gorst, John

      Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

      Gower, Raymond

      Mawby, Ray

      Tebbit, Norman

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Green, Alan

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

      Grieve, Percy

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

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Trafford, Dr. Anthony

      Grylls, Michael

      Moate, Roger

      Trew, Peter

      Gummer, Selwyn

      Molyneaux, James

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Gurden, Harold

      Money, Ernle

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Monro, Hector

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Vickers, Dame Joan

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Waddington, David

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Mudd, David

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Murton, Oscar

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wall, Patrick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Neave, Airey

      Walters, Dennis

      Havers, Michael

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Hawkins, Paul

      Normanton, Tom

      Warren, Kenneth

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Nott, John

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Heseltine, Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hicks, Robert

      Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Higgins, Terence L,

      Osborn, John

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hiley, Joseph

      Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

      Wilkinson, John

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Holland, Philip

      Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Peel, John

      Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      Woodnutt, Mark

      Hornby, Richard

      Peyton, Rt. Hn. John

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Younger, Hn. George

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Hunt, John

      Pounder, Rafton

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Mr. Reginald Eyre and

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Mr. Jasper More.

      Abse, Leo

      Golding, John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Allen, Scholefield

      Gourlay, Harry

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

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Molloy, William

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Ashley, Jack

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ashton, Joe

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Moyle, Roland

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hamling, William

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Barnes, Michael

      Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Barnett, Joel

      Hardy, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Beaney, Alan

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      O' Malley, Brian

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Oram, Bert

      Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Orme, Stanley

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hilton, W. S.

      Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Paget, R. T.

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Horam, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Booth, Albert

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Bradley, Tom

      Huckfield. Leslie

      Pavitt, Laurie

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

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Pendry, Tom

      Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Pentland, Norman

      Buchan, Norman

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, Ernest G.

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

      Hunter, Adam

      Prescott, John

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Janner, Greville

      Probert, Arthur

      Cant, R. B.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Rankin, John

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      John, Brynmor

      Richard, Ivor

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Roper, John

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Rose, Paul B.

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Cronin, John

      Judd, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kelley, Richard

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Kerr, Russell

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

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kinnock, Neil

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

      Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

      Lamond, James

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Latham, Arthur

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davies, Ifor (Cower)

      Lawson, George

      Sillars, James

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman. Julius

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Skinner, Dennis

      Deakins, Eric

      Leonard, Dick

      Small, William

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lipton, Marcus

      Stoddart, David (Swindon)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Loughlin, Charles

      Strang, Gavin

      Driberg, Tom

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Dunnett, Jack

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Swain, Thomas

      Eadie, Alex

      McBride, Neil

      Taverne, Dick

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McCartney, Hugh

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

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      McElhone, Frank

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ellis, Tom

      McGuire, Michael

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

      English, Michael

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Tinn, James

      Evans, Fred

      Mackie, John

      Tomney, Frank

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Torney, Tom

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

      Maclennan, Robert

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Varley, Eric G.

      Foley, Maurice

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

      Wainwright, Edwin

      Foot, Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

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

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Forrester, John

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Wallace, George

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Meacher, Michael

      Watkins, David

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Weitzman, David

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mendelson, John

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mikardo, Ian

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Millan, Bruce

      Whitehead, Phillip

      Ginsburg, David

      Whitlock, William

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mr. Joseph Harper and

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Woof, Robert

      Mr. James Hamilton.

      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

AGRICULTURE (SUPPORT PRICES AND IMPORT DUTIES)
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is the wish of the House to debate together the four Orders in the name of the Minister:
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 802), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Milk and Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 803), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 801), dated 14th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 851), dated 20th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.
and also the following six Prayers:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Levy Arrangements) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 854), dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 855), dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Levy Arrangements) (Milk, Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 856) dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) (Milk, Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 857), dated 21st May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th May, be annulled.
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Minimum Import Price Levels) Cereals Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 632), dated 7th April 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be withdrawn.
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 473), dated 19th March 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th March, be withdrawn.
1726
I also understand that it is the wish of the Opposition that the Division should take place on the first Order.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that there are 10 Orders and Prayers to be debated together, all of which have real implications to the great mass of people. We have an hour and a half in which we are expected to debate then?. May I have a Ruling from you that in the interests of the House they should not be taken in the way proposed, and that if we do not have debates on each individually, at least later in the Session they should be grouped in smaller groups.
Mr. Speaker: I do not think that is a matter for me. I have simply said what I understood was the wish of the House. I think that technically if objection in taken they can be debated individually.
Mr. Loughlin: I am in some difficulty. I do not want to be awkward just for the sake of being awkward. I have been in the House for 11 years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I want to deal with the matter as expeditiously as I can with justice. I object to the taking together of 10 Orders and Prayers most of which involve an increase in the cost of living, and I respectfully submit that we should debate them one at a time.
Mr. Speaker: In the circumstances, I ask the Minister to move the first Order.
10.14 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Prior): I beg to move,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 802), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
I think it would be for the convenience of the House—
Mr. Loughlin: No.
Mr. Prior: I think it would be for the general convenience of the House if at the same time we discussed the three other Orders and the six Prayers. All four Orders are concerned with changes in

1727
agricultural support and can best be looked at together. In this respect, I am moving all four. I understand that it will also be convenient to hon. Members on both sides if we discuss at the same time the four Prayers relating to beef and veal and milk and milk products and the two Motions relating to cereals and eggs.
The Orders are complicated and very important, and I think hon. Members will wish me to make a full explanation. I hope that hon. Members—including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin)—will forgive me in doing so.
The Orders give effect to the interim levy schemes, discussion of which has been taking place with our overseas suppliers, as we announced last March. We then announced that schemes would be introduced to come into effect at the beginning of July to modify the arrangements for cereals and to introduce arrangements for beef and veal, mutton and lamb and milk products other than butter and cheese. The schemes represent a first step in the modification of our agricultural support system which the Government have always regarded as of great importance and to be carried out whether or not we joined the E.E.C. We made clear before we came to office that we intended to make this change as part of our general economic strategy.
We were determined to reduce and render less open-ended the Exchequer's commitment to agricultural support and so make reductions in taxation possible. This could be done only by making agricultural producers' return from the market more stable, which in its turn demanded some means to prevent low-priced imports from undermining the market. Our ultimate aim is to ensure—whether in or outside the E.E.C.—that our farmers have the opportunity to secure an increasing part of their return from the market and also a greater incentive to market their produce in the most efficient way.
The schemes that are before the House this evening are no more than a first step, but, though the proposed levies on the beef and cattle side will mainly act as market stabilisers, leaving the deficiency payment system still as the main method of farmers' returns, they do
1728
represent a significant move in the right direction.
In order to bring these schemes into effect, it is necessary to make a series of Orders under Section 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act, 1964. The first Orders specify the commodities for which minimum import prices and import levies are to apply.
Before the House for approval today are such Orders for beef and veal and for milk and certain milk products. The beef and veal Order is No. 802, the milk and milk products Order is No. 803. They came into operation on 20th May. As soon as these Orders were in operation, Ministers could proceed to make two further Orders setting out respectively the levels of minimum import prices for the specified commodity and the arrangements for charging levies for the purpose of sustaining the minimum prices. At the same time, certain modifications have to be made to the fatstock guarantee arrangements, and the necessary Order is also before the House this evening. That Order is No. 801.
The Import Duties Order is concerned with the introduction of corresponding arrangements for mutton and lamb. The Order is made by the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, under Sections 1, 2 and 13 of the Import Duties Act, 1958. The Order imposes specific import duties on imports of mutton and lamb in three stages. That Order is No. 851.
I should now like to say a little about each of the Orders and schemes, starting with those for meat. Our own farmers provide about 80 per cent. of our beef and veal and some 40 per cent. of our mutton and lamb. Any arrangements to give higher market prices to our own producers must clearly take account of both home and overseas sources of supply. Consequently, at the same time as we are introducing levy arrangements on imported meat, we are making certain modifications to the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. The purpose of these modifications is to encourage and persuade farmers to market as efficiently as they can to get the best price from the market and to watch it closely. These complementary changes need to be considered as part of the total régime for these products.

1729
Three Orders have been laid before the House dealing with the levy arrangements for beef and veal. Apart from the specifying Order, there is one laying down weekly scales of minimum import prices for fat cattle and for various categories of beef and veal during the period July, 1971, to March, 1972. That is Order No. 855. A third Order prescribes the method of determining and charging levies on fat cattle, beef and veal. That is Order No. 854. These Orders provide the statutory framework of the scheme, and I am sure the House will want to know how the arrangements will operate in practice.
There is no world market price for beef, and we have, therefore, decided to link the minimum import prices and levies for beef and veal to the average price of fat cattle in our own markets. I announced on 17th March that for fat cattle in 1971–72 there would be an annual target indicator price of £10.35 per live cwt. From this figure a scale of weekly minimum import prices for fat cattle has been constructed for the period July, 1971, to March, 1972. This scale varies seasonally in accordance with the seasonal scale under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. Minimum import price scales for various categories of beef and veal have been derived from the scale for fat cattle by means of standard coefficients expressing existing price relationships. They are conversion tables to convert from liveweight to deadweight.
Mr. Loughlin: We know that. Get on with it.
Mr. Prior: The hon. Gentleman must not interrupt any more. He has wasted enough time already.
If in any week the estimated average market price of fat cattle in the United Kingdom falls below the minimum import price of fat cattle for that week, levies will be chargeable on imports of fat cattle and the various categories of imported beef and veal in the following week. There will be special arrangements applying to imports from the Irish Republic for reasons that I will mention later.
The levies on beef and veal will be variable from week to week; they should, therefore, quickly reflect changes in market circumstances. Equally, while the average market price remains above the target indicator prices—as at
1730
present—levies will not be operative. They will be applied only if market prices fall below the target price.
The arrangements for mutton and lamb are rather less complex. Because of the nature of the trade in these products, the Government decided that a flat-rate tariff would be more appropriate, as well as easier to administer, than a variable levy scheme. The Order imposes duties on imports of mutton and lamb, other than those from the Irish Republic, as from 1st July, 1971. The rates of duty on lamb set out in the Order are equivalent to Id. a lb. from 1st July, and 2d. per lb. from 1st January to 30th June, 1972, and 3d. thereafter. Imports of bone-in mutton carcases will be at half these rates on account of their lower unit value. The introduction of the duty is being phased in three stages so as to allow the market to adapt gradually to the new situation.
As I have mentioned, imports of beef and veal and of mutton and lamb from the Irish Republic have been excluded from these new arrangements. This is because of the close integration of the cattle industries of the two countries and the arrangements made under the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. But the Government of the Irish Republic have agreed that when our levies are in force on imports from third countries their subsidies on carcase meat will be adjusted in line with adjustments in the rate of deficiency payments under our Fatstock Guarantee Scheme. In other words, if our subsidy is abated as a result of the average market price falling below the target indicator price, the Irish will abate their subsidies in the same way.
I now turn to the Order relating to the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, No. 801. The purpose of this Order is to introduce the changes in the guarantee arrangements for cattle and sheep which were announced in the Annual Review White Paper published on 17th March, 1971.
The seasonal scales of weekly standard prices for both fat cattle and fat sheep will remain under the new arrangements. In addition, there will be a scale of weekly target indicator prices for fat cattle determined at a fixed amount below the standard prices. It will be at the same level as the weekly minimum import prices for fat cattle. For fat sheep, there will be a scale of weekly estimated

1731
prices established at a fixed amount below the standard prices and reflecting the seasonal pattern of market prices.
Deficiency payments for fat cattle will represent the difference between the standard price or guarantee price and either the market price or the target indicator price, whichever of these two is the higher. When the average market price is above the target indicator price, the full deficiency is paid. When it is below, the deficiency payment is restricted to the difference between the target indicator price and the guarantee or standard price. Turning to sheep, if for instance, in any week of the present fatstock year the average market price of sheep falls more than 1½p a lb. below the estimated price, a corresponding reduction will be made in the deficiency payment up to a maximum reduction of 1½p a lb. The position for sheep is slightly different from that for beef and for veal.
The Order abolishes the scales of abatements and supplements for fat cattle and fat sheep but provides for end-of-year residual payments to fat-stock producers. There may be times when the price is above the target indicator price. At other times, the market price may be below the target indicator price, in which case the end-of-year payment is made to all producers. The new arrangements will ensure that if the average market price for the year as a whole is above the target indicator price for the year, producers of fat cattle collectively will receive at least the full guarantee for the year.
Mr. Loughlin: How long does the right hon. Gentleman have to take in this short debate, in view of the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker before the debate began? The whole of his speech is out of order.
Mr. Prior: It is important. I am trying to be as quick and yet as courteous as I can in explaining the Orders properly. They are important. I am not trying to detain the House any more than I need.
If, on the other hand, the average market price for the year is below the target indicator price, any end-of-year payment will be reduced by the amount by which the average market price falls short of the target indicator price.
1732
Corresponding arrangements will operate for fat sheep.
Finally, the Order provides that for 1971–72 there may exceptionally be two residual payments. This is because the new arrangements are being introduced after the 1971–72 fatstock year has begun. The first payment would be for the period up to and including 4th July when the present arrangements will continue to be applied. For the remainder of the fatstock year the new arrangements will be adopted for calculating any end-of-year payment.
I now come to the arrangements concerning milk and milk products. The specifying Order is on similar lines to that for beef and veal, but the background differs from that for meat. For many years there has been no subsidy on milk. The Government retain control over the retail price of ordinary pasteurised milk, but this price has to be calculated so that, taking one year with another, the consumer finances the milk guarantee, the cost of distribution and—more recently—the cost of incentives for the eradication of brucellosis.
About 40 per cent. of our milk—about 1,000 million gallons—goes into the manufacture of milk products such as butter, cheese and condensed milk; the rest goes for liquid milk consumption. The price which the Milk Marketing Boards received for each gallon of milk sold for manufacture into milk products has, until recently, been static or declining. In 1964–65 it was on average rather more than 9p a gallon but in 1969–70 only about 8½p a gallon compared with about 22½p for each gallon of milk sold for liquid consumption, so there is a very wide differential between the price of a gallon of milk sold for liquid consumption and the price of a gallon sold for manufacture. In fact, the differential has been widening in recent years because a large volume of our imports of milk products has been sold below the cost of production.
We have, therefore, decided to extend the system of minimum import prices and levies to milk and certain milk products but not to butter and cheese, which are already the subject of arrangements permitting some regulation of imports. The specifying Order sets out a list of milk products which may become the subject of levy arrangements, and on 1st July

1733
we shall introduce minimum import price arrangements for a number of them—in particular, cream, milk powders and condensed milk. We shall also be taking steps to make sure that the price levels are not undermined by imports of certain related products.
As time is short, I will not describe in detail the individual schemes which we are introducing. I will leave questions on these to my hon. Friend when he comes to wind up the debate.
During the last year, there has been a great change in world markets for milk products. The butter surplus in Western Europe has disappeared and world market prices have markedly strengthened. As a result, the price levels which will prevail here after the introduction of the minimum import price scheme are likely to be very little, if at all, above present world prices. At current price levels they will not, therefore, impose any appreciable extra cost on the user industries. But the situation could change, and the scheme will serve to insure the milk producer against falls in price.
As I have explained, our current market prices reflect broadly the availability of the specified products in world markets. For example, the domestic price of skimmed milk powder, one of the more important commodities covered by this scheme, is now freely established at about £160 a ton.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene, but we are in some confusion. When the debate opened and Mr. Speaker began to put the issues before the House, he asked whether he had the consent of the House to take all the Orders together. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) objected. I understood Mr. Speaker then to say that the Minister must move the Orders individually. Nobody challenged the situation, because we understood that the Minister and one member from our Front Bench would be speaking.
From the conversation which has gone on while the Minister has been speaking, it is apparent that there are to be two Front Bencher speakers from each side, if they catch your eye. This is an intolerable position. We do not know where we are. We do not know whether Mr.
1734
Speaker's Ruling has been accepted. If it has, then the Minister has been out of order for most of his speech and we are simply on the first Order. That is the Order to which the Minister should be addressing his remarks and the only one upon which the House can come to a decision by 11.30 this evening. I take it that that is the position, and that you will confirm it and bring the Minister to order on the Motion before the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): My understanding of the position is that Mr. Speaker ruled that it would be for the convenience of the House, as the issues were inter-linked, for the four Orders to be discussed together, and Mr. Speaker called the first Order, which I shall do in due course when the Minister sits down.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My recollection, and that of many of my Friends, is that Mr. Speaker directed the Minister to move only one Order. The Minister then proceeded to move the other Orders, and if we look at HANSARD we shall see that the Minister moved them.
I ask you to rule that the Minister's speech has been out of order, because he moved all the Motions—so that the rest of his speech must obviously be out of order—and that when we come to vote we shall vote only on the first Order, and the other Government Motions will fall unless they are re-tabled.
If that is not the position, then Parliament has been misled, and the right of hon. Members to debate these matters has been seriously affected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think there is any difference between the two points of view in the House. Mr. Speaker ruled that the four Orders could be discussed together, and then that the Question on the first Order would be proposed in due course, which I have said I shall do in due course when the Minister sits down. That does not preclude the further Orders being moved subsequently.
Mr. Loughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raised the first point of order, and I was under the impression—and I think that HANSARD will bear this out—that Mr. Speaker

1735
ruled in my favour on the submission that I made. I was quite content to be a little tolerant—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think there is any difference between us. I think the hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. We are at the moment moving one Order, and we are discussing other Orders with it because the matters are inter-linked.
Mr. Loughlin: I want to help the House, because I realise that the House can operate only if there is some degree of agreement between the two sides. What I am asking is that, although a Ruling was given, some consideration ought to be given by the two Front Benches to giving at least a degree of time to back benchers who want to debate the Orders The right hon. Gentleman has spoken at great length on all the Orders, instead of being sensible. I am prepared to be sensible if the right hon. Gentleman is, but if he is not, I am prepared to push my luck.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect the Chair to enter into Front Bench discussions.
Mr. Prior: I am trying to be as quick as I can, and I appreciate that the House wants to discuss these Orders.
One of the more important commodities covered by the scheme, skim milk powder, is now freely established at £160 a ton. The scheme will underpin that price by setting a minimum import price of £157 a ton. Since world prices have now moved more closely into line with the minimum import price under the scheme, there will be no levy to be paid.
To complete the pictude on m.i.p. schemes I should like to refer briefly to the scheme for cereals and eggs. For cereals, the price will go up on average by £3·50 a ton for the period up to the end of July, 1972, and about a further £2·50 for the remainder of that year.
The schemes have been criticised as likely to cause a sharp rise in food prices. This is not likely. The schemes will have a stabilising effect on prices but will not cause any major increases. The House will recall that when I announced these schemes in March I estimated that they
1736
would raise the Food Price Index by about half of 1 per cent. in the period up to July, 1972. I see no reason to change that estimate.
I have already dealt with the price of milk products. As for beef, world shortages and a steady rise in beef prices mean that it is most unlikely that any levy will be paid. The price of fat cattle on the open market is £13 per hundred weight. The m.i.p. at £10·35 provides a safeguard against market weakness.
The effect on prices has been the main criticism of the schemes. But they have also been criticised from the opposite point of view, as likely to be largely ineffective because, in so many cases, market prices are at or above the level of the m.i.p.s. But, even if no levies are imposed, the schemes will still have an important effect. They will support or underpin our market prices and prevent any sudden collapse from undue pressures from imports.
The schemes, including the cereals scheme, which provides for a much more significant measure of market stabilisation than does the existing scheme, relate to about half the farm sales in this country. They therefore provide substantial market support. I therefore commend the schemes to the House. I believe that they represent an important step in the development of a new support policy for agriculture. Taken together, they will do much to create firmer markets and to limit and reduce the cost of agricultural support and give confidence to the agricultural industry.
10.43 p.m.
Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: These are very important and complex Orders and the concern expressed by my hon. Friends is very natural and will be understood throughout the House. We have heard a very complicated speech by the Minister. I do not know how many of us have really digested everything he said, but I shall try to be a little less complicated.
We had a general debate on agriculture on Tuesday, when we indicated our opposition to these Orders. Their object, put simply, is to impose levies—a tariff—on foodstuffs imported into this country. The Government's case for this policy is two fold—first, that it will relieve the Exchequer, that is the taxpayer, and,

1737
second, that it will protect the British farmer by enabling him to expand and produce more of the commodities which are thereby protected.
Our objection to these levies is that while they may relieve the Exchequer of some liability, they will inevitably increase the cost to the consumer—and this additional cost will be in excess of the rapidly rising cost of foodstuffs which is now going on.
We also take the view that to take these steps outside the Common Market is totally unnecessary. Under the Labour Government we had reasonable control over the imports of food into this country without increasing the price of food. [Interruption.] We had improved the anti-dumping legislation with good results and selective expansion was proceeding at a reasonable rate—subject, as I said on Tuesday, to certain factors over which we had no control, such as the weather and disease.
I wish to be brief in the interests of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Nor am I confident that under the new system farmers across the board will start a period of rapid expansion, which is the Government's argument. I am not alone in my apprehension. The Farmers Weekly, not a radical Socialist periodical, discussing the meat trade and the need for better marketing, said in the issue of 18th June:
"The industry would be happier about the new policy if the Minister could explain how, when deficiency payments fade out, farmers can make sure that they get a fair share of end prices".
There is great doubt about that, and that is what we and the farmers are particularly anxious to clarify. It is one of the uncertainties I mentioned in Tuesday's debate.
This means a free market. Agriculture is dropping the pilot, to borrow a maritime metaphor, and this brings me to a matter of practical importance with which neither the Minister nor any other Government spokesman has dealt. We know broadly from the experience of the Common Agricultural Policy that import levies are not effective as a means of price control without intervention buying. We also know that the cost of intervention buying to the E.E.C. has been substantial. If there is no policy for inter-
1738
vention buying and the fall-back guarantee is low, which may be the case, where is the security for the farmer? There is no price guarantee at all.
It is my duty, as the spokesman for the Opposition, to warn the Minister that we could run into very deep trouble unless we have the means to "deal with this aspect of the matter.
The question of the effect of higher prices on demand is a difficult one to consider and precise calculations are impossible. This is why I was always worried about increasing the milk award. I was always afraid of what the effect might be on demand and consumption.
How does the Minister see the rise in prices as a result of this levy? We should be told by how much meat, flour and, consequently, bread prices, are likely to go up, and it would be prudent for the Minister not to under-estimate these rises. He mentioned a rise of one-half of 1 per cent., but I am extremely worried lest he is under-estimating it because if he is we could be heading for deep trouble.
On 22nd June the Financial Times contained an interesting article on which the right hon. Gentleman might wish to comment. It was pointed out that there was normally a reduction in the price of meat between July and December because of increased supplies. This year, due to the levies, the writer suggested, the consumer would not have the benefit of that usual downward trend. In other words, the price of meat will be constant and will go up as a result of the levies.
I understand that the meat trade is arguing that the proposed rate—that is, in Statutory Instrument No. 851—to be imposed by 1st July next year will, at present C.I.F. prices, be about 14 per cent. When transmitted to the retail level, this will mean an increase of about 20 per cent. It is argued that the suggestion that that considerable increase can be passed back to the exporting producer cannot be substantiated. If this is the case, it would therefore be a straight tax on one of the cheaper meat commodities and would affect the lower income groups. We are deeply concerned about this.
I wish to ask a number of questions, which I will put very briefly. First, can the Minister tell us more about the consultations which have taken place on these new arrangements? Have overseas

1739
suppliers, the trade in Britain, and the farmers' unions all been fully consulted, and to what extent have their views been taken into account?
Secondly, can the Minister explain further the arrangements dealing with meat products? Neither the beef nor the lamb schemes cover offals or sheep-meat products, yet veal is included although it is a relatively unimportant item in the trade in this country. Has any special arrangement been made for beef of manufacturing quality?
Thirdly, on the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme, Statutory Instrument No. 801, what will happen about guaranteed prices? Will producers continue to receive them? What will be the position if market prices fall below the average of the target price for the year as a whole. So far as I can see, the arrangements make no provision for the possibility of complete collapse in market prices. We recognise that prices have been at a high level over recent months but this is a real possibility, as we know from our previous experience, and I should have thought a very worrying one.
Fourthly, in framing the scheme, has the Minister borne in mind the special need of hill sheep producers? Are there special provisions for them? As we know, they always tend to be in a weak position, and there is no guarantee of increased end prices getting back to them.
Fifthly, can the Minister give an estimate of the levy revenue which will be derived from the new schemes and from the increase in cereals m.i.ps. Where will this money go? Will it go into the Treasury, nothing more being heard about it? How much will be passed, for example, to the retirement pensioner, as was promised, in supplementary benefit or in some other way? That pledge was given by the Conservative Party when they were in opposition.
Lastly, I notice that the new beef levy scheme provides for the bonding of imported beef. Presumably this is a device to keep supplies off the market. But can the Minister explain how it will operate, and will he say whether he is satisfied that the weight of stocks in cold store will not have a depressing effect on the market?
We are extremely disturbed and unhappy about the Orders. I must invite
1740
my hon. Friends to record our objection in the Lobby tonight. The vote we take must be taken as a vote against all these Orders which are anathema to us and which we regard as completely unnecessary at present.
10.53 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I will be very quick as many hon. Members wish to speak. The Orders are part of the Government's policy. This is nothing new. When we were in opposition, we said that we were going to do these things and now we are carrying out another of our promises, as we always do.
It seems utterly absurd for the Opposition to bring this before the House tonight when they have themselves used this method in the past on eggs and cereals. It is almost downright dishonest to oppose the Orders. They are prepared to use them themselves but not prepared to support us tonight.
With agriculture, one has only to look at the past to see the problems we have had through heavily subsidised imports sometimes causing chaos. It is absolute nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to say that all was well in the past. We have suffered for years, but the present Government are determined to do something about it.
These Orders will certainly help the consumer.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, they will. A strong agriculture is to the benefit of the consumer. If we had had higher production when the previous Administration were in power, we should not have been short of butter and beef now. That is what is causing high costs to the consumer.
I am rushing through these points as best I can. Agriculture has suffered over the years from this sort of thing. I applaud a Government who have the courage to ensure that imports are regulated. It is to the benefit of agriculture and of the consumer.
Sixthly, every other country—I instance America and the Community countries—has some form of protection in the interests of their agriculture and their consumers. Why should we be left as the only dumping ground in the world? I believe it is wrong that we should be.
Seventhly, there is the need for flexibility. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use this as a regulator. When the

1741
food is needed, he will allow it in. When it is not and we can produce it ourselves, I hope that he will stop it from coming in. That will be to the benefit of the consumer and of agriculture.
Eighthly, let us not weep for butchers. They have moaned enough about this. I have no tears to shed for them.
Mr. Harold Walker Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster) rose—
Mr. Mills: No, I am in a hurry. Have no tears for the butchers.
Mr. Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the House that hon. Members with an interest in the subject under debate declare their interest?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
Mr. Mills: I am trying to hurry so that others can speak. Weep no longer for the butchers. They work a policy of averaging up their prices. This is not always to the advantage of the consumer. When meat is cheap how often is that reflected in the shop. All the protests the butchers are making to me at present are complete nonsense.
I have spoken fast. I apologise for doing so. These are eight reasons why the Government are right, as they always are.
10.47 p.m.
Mr. Charles Loughlin: I will not spend too much time on these Orders. It is to be regretted that we have to debate a considerable number of Orders in one and a half hours. The Minister had a prepared speech—I do not blame him; I used prepared speeches when I was a Minister—so when he knew the situation he could not adjust himself.
It is true that these are all technical Orders and they need a lot of explaining, but there was no reason why the Minister should indulge in the Civil Service gobbledegook that he did in the case of each Order. The House wants to know how these Orders will affect the individual. There is bound to be some qualification in the explanation of a
1742
technical Order. The Minister spent all his time on a technical explanation of about 11 Orders which hon. Members on both sides, if the two Front Benches want to speak again—
Mr. John Wells: Then say something.
Mr. Loughlin: I would have said "Goodnight" to the hon. Gentleman if I had known that he wanted to go.
It is difficult to probe in sufficient depth what will happen to prices under the Orders. The Minister said that he did not think that it would involve an increase in prices and that the Orders would have a stabilising effect, or that at the most there would be a rise of ½ per cent. I do not believe a word the Minister says, because it has been estimated from a number of sources that in consequence of these Orders the price of meat will rise by 3p a pound in July of this year. He knows as well as I do that that the cost of living will go up. Bread has been mentioned, and the Minister himself referred to meat. The cost of food has gone up by 10 per cent. mid-June to mid-June; in the 12 months of this miserable, incompetent lot.
Here they are. They have come here tonight and produced a whole series of Orders, knowing full well that the consequence is an increase in the cost of living, and they laughingly say, "We are not going to have any sympathy with the meat traders." It has nothing to do with the meat traders. It is true that meat traders have written to me, but those who have a vested interest will write to Members of Parliament.
I do not mind the hon. Gentleman the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) not being concerned about the meat traders—though they are an integral part of distribution, and even he is concerned about our farmers. He himself is a farmer, although he never says so. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) rightly says that the hon. Gentleman never declares his interest. When my hon. Friend asked him to declare his interest, the hon. Gentleman brushed the request to one side. The hon. Gentleman is a fanner and in a debate of this kind he has a responsibility to declare his interest—
Mr. Peter Mills: Get on with it.
Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman may get excited, but he will not get me excited. It is no good the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the only people who will be affected by these Orders, the only people who have a legitimate crib, are the meat traders. The housewife will have a crib, and so will the old age pensioners—
Mr. John Wells: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughlin: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has just come in out of the Bar, and I will not—
Mr. Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is no good the hon. Member telling lies. I have been sitting here since long before he began to speak—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) does not want to say what he has just said, and I very much hope that he will not continue to use that expression about any hon. Member.
Mr. Loughlin: Would it not be in keeping with the tradition of the House when one hon. Member accuses another of lying for the Chair not merely to say that the Chair hopes that the hon. Gentleman will not pursue it, but to ask him to withdraw the expression? Would it not be better if the hon. Member withdrew the mark because it is unparliamentary?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member for Maidstone is trying to do so.
Mr. John Wells: I will be delighted to withdraw the remark if the hon. Gentleman, in his turn, will acknowledge that I have been here since the beginning of the debate.
Mr. Loughlin: I shall not pursue—
Mr. Wells: Then I cannot withdraw my remark—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would wish to withdraw what he said. He can well find an alternative expression if he wishes. But he should withdraw the expression which he used.
Mr. Wells: I am delighted to withdraw, but I wish I could think of some alternative word.
Mr. Loughlin: I do not want to pursue the matter.
When these Orders come into effect and food prices in the shops are increased as a consequence, I know what people will think about it, and about hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
11.5 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: Even at this late hour, I can only be amazed by the audacity of some hon. Members opposite. If my right hon. Friend had taken less time in introducing the Orders, he would have been accused of skimping them. Whatever course my right hon. Friend adopted was bound to meet with the displeasure of some people who have not studied the matter.
I was amazed by the remarks of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes). It is very strange that he should oppose the Orders because, when he was Minister a very short time ago, his Department, under his instructions, was actively engaged in preparing them. His Ministry officials had gone a long way in the preparation of a meat scheme. Yet tonight he had the barefaced audacity—one can call it nothing else—to deplore not only the meat Order but all the other Orders.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Orders. They represent another example of the Government fulfilling their election pledges at an early date. What we are putting into effect tonight was one of the pledges we gave before polling day and which helped to win us the election. For too long the farmers have been in a straitjacket because they have been unable to get the necessary money for expansion from the Treasury. These Orders, which we shall carry tonight, will put matters right for agriculture and get it again on the road to expansion.
I should like to ask my right hon. Friend a couple of questions—he was so badgered by some ignorant hon. Members opposite that he probably was unable to say all he wanted to say. Was he at any time in consultation with the National Farmers' Union and the Commonwealth Governments concerned, and, if so, did

1745
they approve the details of the Orders? Secondly, he mentioned the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. Have representations been made to the Irish Government? We are prepared to play our part in fulfilling the agreement, but they must bring up to the agreed quantities the store cattle exports to this country which are so necessary to many British farmers who rely on the guaranteed quantity of cattle they undertook to supply under the agreement for fattening here.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the energetic way in which he produced these valuable Orders.
11.8 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: It is typical of the Government that they should try to slip through Orders of vital importance at this time of night. I suppose that the only thing which can be said of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) is that he deserves to be at least a P.P.S. in view of the vigour with which he leaps to defend his right hon. Friend the Minister whenever he presents the indefensible to the House.
I was amazed that the Minister did not say one word about the response of such organisations as the meat importers, meat retailers or of any foreign—[Interruption.] May I have the Minister's attention? He took a long time to make his speech, but he failed to deal with many of the problems of these organisations. He might at least have the courtesy to pay a little attention to the views of the retail and meat importing interests.
The Minister did not tell us what sort of response he had had from other Governments which he had consulted and perhaps even negotiated with during the discussions which must have taken place on these proposals. What was the attitude of the United States to these Orders, and what negotiations did he have with the United States? He kept silent on that matter and on the question of consultation, if indeed he had consultation, with the retail trade.
Some of my hon. Friends may well accuse the Government of implementing, in these Orders, policies which would follow our entry into the European Economic Community. I do not take that view. These Orders which we are
1746
discussing tonight have nothing to do with Britain's entry into the E.E.C. These Orders are a part of the Conservative Government's declared aim of increasing food prices to the British public because, as the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said some time ago, it was his opinion that the British people had been mollycoddled too long on a low price food policy. There is no need for me to give the exact quotation, because he must be familiar with it by now; it has been rammed down his throat enough times. This is part of the declared Tory Government's policy of forcing up prices of basic food commodities to the British public.
The hon. Member for Torrington, in his brief remarks, made some very offensive references to the retail trade who undertake a very useful service which is well received by the British public, in recommending cuts of meat and in advising housewives how to modify the impact of the vicious policy which the Minister is following. I can tell the hon. Member and his right hon. Friend that there were many retail butchers, their wives and 18-year-old children who voted Tory a year ago. They will not vote Tory again, because they are sick of the attitude of the Minister to the service which they provide to the housewife. He has treated them almost with complete contempt.
Mr. Peter Mills: The hon. Member is muddling the butchers with the federation. It is the federation which has opposed this proposal all along the line.
Mr. Wellbeloved: The more the hon. Gentleman attacks respectable retail organisations such as the butchers' organisation, the more he does his party and himself a grave disservice. Many members of the federation were supporters of his party. I am pleased to inform him that he has lost their support at the next election.
A short time ago the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry threatened the motor car industry that he would remove import levies, in the interests, as he saw it, of competition. Now we have the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food putting on import levies in this so-called desire of the Tories for free competition. They cannot have it both ways.
Mr. John E. B. Hill: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wellbeloved: No, I will not. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
I advise some of my hon. Friends, who might be getting a little edgy if I should take more than a couple of minutes, that there are on the Paper tonight another three Orders to which they can direct their attention for an hour and a half on each Order. Although my right hon. Friend said that we are to have one vote, which will be indicative of our opposition to all of these Orders, if the Minister and some of his hon. Friends continue in the spirit in which they have so far conducted themselves, they may find themselves here for three times 1½ hours with three votes. If that is what they want, we shall be delighted to oblige them.
Returning to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, one of the points which concern those who have the difficult job of implementing this vicious legislation is the matter of the minimum import price and the levy which will be paid.
As the Minister explained—I hope that everybody grasped his explanation, because it was very complicated—the levy will be calculated on the Thursday of each week, based upon the average live price per cwt. in live auction markets over the previous three days. If that calculated minimum price fell below the minimum import price set out in the order a levy would be charged. What happens if, in the week after the level of the levy has been set, the actual price of imported meat exceeds the average price of the previous week, per live cwt.? Will a levy then be necessary?
Mr. Prior: The levy will go on for that week, but presumably the average market price in the markets to which the hon. Member has referred will rise in the following week, and there will be no need for the levy.
Mr. Wellbeloved: If the Minister studies Order No. 854 he will see that paragraph states that the levy is to be imposed
"With a view to maintaining the minimum import price level for any specified commodity "
1748
and so on. If that is so, and if in the week the levy is charged the import price of meat exceeds the minimum import indicator set out, the butchers maintain that since the paragraph clearly indicates that the levy is chargeable only if it is with a view to maintaining the minimum import price it will be illegal for the Minister to charge the levy in that week. That is the point that the butchers have put to the Minister, and they have not received any satisfaction from him. I am putting it to him again now, and I hope that he will give me an answer, and will not rely on paragraph 5(c) of the Order to which I have referred, as he has apparently done so far in reply to the butchers.
This is an important point. It brings into doubt the legality of the Order. If the Minister cannot answer now he should ensure that before we end the debate he obtains some hurried explanation from those within the precincts of the House.
I understand that if the Minister wishes in any way to alter the minimum import prices set out in the Order for the purpose of the levy he does not need to obtain Parliament's authority; I believe that he is able simply to make an Order which is not subject to any vote in this House. If we pass the Order we are therefore placing in the hands of a Minister in whom we have no confidence—in terms of protecting the housewife—power to vary these Orders and thus impose even greater burdens upon the housewife. I urge my hon. Friends to oppose the Order and to go out into the country and explain to the housewives that the Government are imposing upon their weekend joint of meat a tax which is an absolute disgrace, and a betrayal of every pledge that the party opposite made on their election platform, in respect of reducing food prices at a stroke.
11.18 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: We have had a great amount of specious rubbish from the Labour Party in the last few days, and tonight is no exception.
First, the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) inquired what this would cost, and what we would do in the future for the pensioners. He cannot have been present during the debate initiated by my right hon Friend the

1749
Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government are doing more for pensioners than any other Government have done. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who blabbers on about things that he does not understand, says that "good sources" have calculated that the effect of the Order will be to put on 3p. [Interruption.] He referred to "reliable sources" or some such thing. If 3p was not what he said he can revise the figure. My right hon. Friend gave a firm calculation as worked out by the Ministry, and I would much rather have his firm calculation, which is accurate.
Mr. Harold Walker: Does the hon. Gentleman expect us to take it as seriously as his right hon. Friend suggested the Prime Minister's words should be taken?
Mr. Wells: I always take my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture seriously, as I take my right hon Friend the Prime Minister very seriously.
We want to know the source of the hon. Gentleman's calculations. That was why I sought to intervene in his speech. He would not give way because it was a bogus calculation, and he knew it.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) attacked my right hon. Friend for bringing forward the Orders at this hour of the night. Can he tell me at what hour of the night it is usual to bring forward Orders like this? This is the time at which such Orders always come on, as he knows. [Interruption.] I am addressing my remarks through the Chair to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West should go back to sleep.
Mr. Wellbeloved: There are 10 Orders and Prayers dealing with import levies. If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that they should all be taken together for debate in an hour and a half, I do not think much of his opinion of parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Wells: I should be delighted if they were debated for as long as hon. Members wish.
Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wells: No.
Mr. Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman is constantly naming me. He should give way.
Mr. Wells: The hon. Gentleman is one of the best-known cheats in the House. He makes remarks of questionable veracity, is unwilling to give way, and then appeals to the Chair.
The Orders seek to promote a healthy British agriculture, and with a healthy and prosperous agriculture the British housewife will be well served.
11.23 p.m.
Mr. John Mackie: First, I must again take to task the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). Who the devil is he talking about—himself and me and the rest of the 220,000-odd farmers compared with the 55 million people in this country? He talks about things in a narrow and selfish way.
The hon. Gentleman talked about other countries, but we import half our food and are in a totally different position from those countries which produce all their food. He talks awful nonsense for a sensible, decent farmer. It is extraordinary.
Mr. Wellbeloved: He is decent, but not sensible.
Mr. Mackie: The Minister said that the Orders were the first steps in changing our agricultural policy. They are the first step in doing away with the guarantee as well. In using that euphemism the Minister overstepped himself. He is always saying that what he is doing will stop low-priced imports from undermining our market. That is not his policy. His policy is by a levy system to raise the price of home farmers' produce to the guaranteed price by 1974, and this has nothing to do with the low price of imports. It is not an argument about whether we accept the policy when we enter the Common Market, when we shall have other advantages. It was evolved before we knew whether we were going into the Common Market.
The Minister said he was anxious that farmers should get the best prices from the market. If farmers are to do so, they have to have some system of marketing other than they have today. Is he prepared to encourage and give permission to them to start a beef marketing scheme? This is important.

1751
I know how complicated these Orders are, and I have some sympathy—although not too much—with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) in not understanding these things. The question of target indicator prices has been mentioned. If the price falls below that target, do I take it that these guarantees will not operate except from the target indicator price to the guaranteed price and that at the end of the year it will be made up?
Mr. Prior indicated dissent.
Mr. Mackie: If that is the case, it seems a complicated way to do it and I would like the right hon. Gentleman to clear the point up. If that is not the case, and if the beef scheme is to work properly, it should never fall below the target indicator price.
The right hon. Gentleman is lucky in the timing of these levies because at the moment beef and milk product prices are high. He said that he did not think these levies would be required. I hope he will take cognisance of the fact that food prices are the most volatile in the world. Before his levies start to bite, beef and milk prices could come down. It is not long since product prices were very low.
But this is not really a change in agricultural policy. It is a change in the guarantees to the farmers which they have been operating for many years. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible for taking those guarantees away.
11.22 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Whatever the advantages of a tariff or levy system, no one can pretend that it is introduced in the interests of the consumers. Clearly, it is not. It is a system of removing the pressure from the taxpayers on to the consumers while at the same time guaranteeing farmers reasonable prices. The system does not seem to make any sense in a country like ours, which imports 50 per cent. of its foodstuffs. It is a deliberate tax on food prices for the consumers and, therefore, takes away the marked industrial advantage which this country has enjoyed over other countries.
One has only to compare the food prices in this country with the food
1752
prices in the Common Market countries to see how much more expensive the levy system is to the consumers. The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) invited us to look at history. He did not go very far back. This country has had this kind of system in the past. We are really going back to the Corn Law system, which held back this country's development for many years. We know what happened to agriculture when the Corn Laws were repealed. They were damming up the prices at an artificially high level. It is arguable that if we enter the E.E.C. there must be adaptation. But that is not the ground on which these levies are proposed. They are designed to relieve the subsidy pressure on the taxpayers. As such they are unjustifiable and a retrograde step. A Government who introduce a system which deliberately puts an additional pressure on the consumers need their heads examined.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Eric Deakins: As hon. Members know, I have an interest in agricultural matters. The purpose of these Orders, particularly the ones dealing with beef and veal, is not to put a bottom in the market, which was the original intention of the Labour Government's Orders, but to replace the system of guaranteed prices. That means that eventually the target indicator price on beef and veal will have to be raised to a sufficient level where it will operate and replace the present system of guaranteed prices. This means that the farmer will get his return in the market, which hon. Members opposite welcome.
There are many fluctuations in the market, from week to week and market to market. I wonder whether the farmers among hon. Members opposite are aware of the increased fluctuations which could apply under this new levy system. Whatever the fluctuations may be at the moment in an individual farmer's market returns, he has the benefit of a collective guarantee which does something to iron out the differences between one week and another and one farmer and another.
Secondly, it is said that Order No. 801 dealing with the fatstock guarantee payments procedure will force a farmer into a better pattern of marketing cattle and sheep and so on. What gives the Minister confidence to say that this will help farmers adjust themselves to the new

1753
levy system? On the face of it it does not seem so very different from the present system of seasonal scales, abatements and so on.
The effect on the housewife has been mentioned and I will not labour the point except to say that the farmers sitting opposite ought to be aware of the effect of increased retail food prices on patterns of consumption. There is no point in claiming to produce 100 per cent. of a commodity if the total amount of that commodity bought by the housewife and eaten is consequently reduced. Farmers have an interest in seeing that the consumer can afford their products, and it is not clear under these Orders whether that will be the case. There could be a switch from beef and veal to pork, in the same way as there is likely to be switching from butter to margarine. That may satisfy some of the farming interests on the benches opposite but I do not think it would satisfy the whole farming community.
I turn now to one or two technical points. We understand the reasons for the exclusion of Eire because of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and the difficulties of distinguishing between store cattle and fat cattle. About 80 per cent. of our requirements come from this country and Eire. That means that only 20 per cent. will bear the levies. Most of those beef imports are frozen beef, not chilled. Much of the frozen beef is used for manufacturing products such as steak and kidney pie and is not sold direct.
Unless there is some concession on the levy system for frozen meat used for manufacture it will raise the price of not only general meat products in the shops but tinned meat products. Is the Minister prepared to give a remission of levy on frozen meat used for manufacture, and if so, will he let us know in the reply to the debate?
If there is to be a levy on frozen meat imported into this country and used for manufacture, will it not put domestic manufacturers using home supplies of beef for manufacturing purposes at a distinct disadvantage compared with their continental rivals? They will see imported products enter the country free of levy whereas the frozen beef for use in their products will be subject to levy.
1754
I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of his policy.
11.34 p.m.
Mr. Michael Barnes: As was made clear at the beginning of the debate, we intend to vote only against the first of these Orders, although we are opposed to all of them.
I would like to emphasise what it is we object to. It is that hon. Gentlemen opposite talk as if the change-over from one system of agricultural support to another—from the system of deficiency payments to the new system based on levies—makes no difference in the sense that the taxpayer gains what the consumer has to pay. But it does make a difference, and here I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson).
In many cases, the taxpayer and the consumer are not the same people. Many consumers, especially pensioners, do not pay income tax. But they will have to pay higher food prices if farmers are to get bigger returns from the market. Many who pay income tax will be worse off because of the way in which the Government have chosen to hand out the tax concessions that they are making. The Government's philosophy for their tax concessions seems to be, "The more you have, the more you get in tax concessions." It was clear from the mini-Budget last October and the Budget at the end of March that a family of four would get a net benefit only if its income was about £3,000 a year. The average family will have to pay more for its meat while financing the tax concessions to those who are better off.
If the Government made substantial increases in family allowances, it would be different. If there were to be a bigger pension increase than the proposed £1, it would be different. The real value of the pension today is lower than at any time since before the increase given by the Labour Government in 1965, and when the increase comes it will be very largely eroded. In any event, the increase in the pension is meant to compensate pensioners for the increase in the cost of living that there has been already. It is not intended to meet increased food prices which pensioners will have to pay as a result of this legislation.

1755
The food index shows that food prices have gone up 10·4 per cent. in the 11 months from June of last year to the middle of May. Inflation has so eaten into housekeeping budgets that housewives cannot stand further increases in food prices resulting from a changeover to a new system of agricultural support, unless they are properly compensated for that change-over.
The issue before the House tonight is concerned with what is fair as between one section of the community and another. The Government have decided to change the system of agricultural support whether or not we go into the European Economic Community. As a number of hon. Members have said, the E.E.C. is not the issue tonight. The issue is the fact that the Government are changing the system of agricultural support in an unfair way, because they are failing to compensate average families for the increases that they face.
The Orders are the beginning of a crude application of Conservative philosophy which means that food prices will go up, better-off taxpayers will be over-compensated, and the average family will be worse off. That is why we shall oppose them.
11.38 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): In the brief time available to me, I want to deal with as many as possible of the technical points which have been raised in the debate. I shall not go into much of the background which my right hon. Friend mentioned in opening.
I take, first, the technical point raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Mackie) about the operation of the new system. I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will write to him explaining how it works. The existing guarantee scheme, especially in relation to abatements and supplements, is not easy to explain briefly, either. I think a letter from my right hon. Friend will be the simplest way of dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) alleged that these meat levies will put up meat prices by
1756
3p a 1b. during July. He is being a little unfair. As my right hon. Friend said, beef prices already are well above the minimum import price levies, and the levies on beef are virtually certain not to operate during July. Looking towards the autumn, it is interesting that, with the present fat cattle price of £13 a cwt., the price would have to fall, once adjusted by the seasonal scale, below £96·6 a cwt. in the autumn before the levies would operate.
On this point, although hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to a number of organisations and others who have said that it will have an effect on beef prices, the Meat and Livestock Commission has received a report this week from its independent panel of economists which claims that this beef levy will not hit prices except perhaps marginally for a short period in the autumn. That is the opinion of an independent body whose opinion we can respect.
The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) raised a technical point on Statutory Instrument No. 854. As the hon. Gentleman said, Article 5 of that Order sets out how the Minister shall deal with the level of the levy. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of that article explicitly state that the Minister shall compare the minimum import price with the United Kingdom fat cattle prices. Clearly, this comes within the terms of the Order.
The right hon. Member for Anglesev (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) referred to milk supplies. It is an interesting point of principle relating to the whole milk market of this country. He said that he had often been concerned about the effect that increasing the market price for milk would have on the consumer and on the liquid milk market. Frankly, one could often argue that in the past the liquid consumer had borne a disproportionate share of the costs of milk products to consumption generally. The right hon. Gentleman knows that, with the balance through the Milk Fund, the consumer in buying liquid milk products can be affected by the price of milk going to manufacture. The two are self-balancing. To this extent the introduction of the import levy scheme on milk products almost certainly helps to redress any lack of balance between these two sectors of the milk market.

1757
The right hon. Gentleman also asked about consultations. We have had consultations with foreign Governments, and everything that we have brought before the House has been negotiated with them. We have also discussed the matter with the farmers' unions. They welcome what we are putting before the House.
The right hon. Gentleman then asked about hill sheep producers. I hope that those in the hill areas will benefit from the strengthening of market prices for lamb and mutton.
It is not easy to give an indication of how much revenue might accrue under the new and revised levy schemes in the current year. It is obvious that this will depend on market prices. For mutton and lamb we expect a revenue of about £3 million for 1971–72 and about £8 million in subsequent years.
We do not expect much revenue from beef and cereals on account of world prices and the prices which we are setting. Bonding should help. We have had discussions and we are introducing bonding at the request of meat importers and traders. It should help to give greater

Division No. 396.]

AYES

[11.45 p.m

Adley, Robert

Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Astor, John

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Knox, David

Atkins, Humphrey

Fowler, Norman

Lambton, Antony

Awdry, Daniel

Fox, Marcus

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

Le Marchant, Spencer

Benyon, W.

Gardner, Edward

Longden, Gilbert

Biffen, John

Gibson-Watt, David

Loveridge, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Goodhart, Philip

Luce, R. N.

Blaker, Peter

Goodhew, Victor

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

Gower, Raymond

McCrindle, R. A.

Body, Richard

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

McLaren, Martin

Boscawen, Robert

Green, Alan

McMaster, Stanley

Bowden, Andrew

Grieve, Percy

McNair-Wilson, Michael

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Marten, Neil

Bray, Ronald

Gummer, Selwyn

Mather, Carol

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Gurden, Harold

Maude, Angus

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Bryan, Paul

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Mills, Peter (Torrington)

Buck, Antony

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Burden, F. A.

Haselhurst, Alan

Moate, Roger

Carlisle, Mark

Hastings, Stephen

Money, Ernle

Channon, Paul

Havers, Michael

Monks, Mrs. Connie

Chapman, Sydney

Hayhoe, Barney

More, Jasper

Clegg, Walter

Hicks, Robert

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Cooke, Robert

Hiley, Joseph

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

Coombs, Derek

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

Murton, Oscar

Cormack, Patrick

Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

Neave, Airey

Crouch, David

Holt, Miss Mary

Normanton, Tom

Crowder, F. P.

Hordern, Peter

Nott, John

Curran, Charles

Hornby, Richard

Onslow, Cranky

Dodds-Parker, Douglas

Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

Drayson, G. B.

Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Dykes, Hugh

Howell, David (Guildford)

Percival, Ian

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Pink, R. Bonner

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

James, David

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Eyre, Reginald

Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

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

Farr, John

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

stability to the market by making it easier for distant suppliers to hold stocks when there is a weak market.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) asked about our discussions with the Irish. My right hon. Friend hopes to be in a position shortly to make an announcement on the outcome of those discussions.
In debating the Orders we have to remember that, contrary to what the hon. Member for Chiswick and Brentford (Mr. Barnes) said, we have shown, by our policies in relation to social security benefits, family income supplement, and so on, that we are concerned about people. To help the consumer we are introducing into the agricultural market a greater degree of stability. This will mean that the British consumer is less dependent on imports and the high costs which flow from that course of action. The Order is in the interests of the consumer as well as the producer.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 163, Noes 140.

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

Walters, Dennis

Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

Ward, Dame Irene

Redmond, Robert

Sutcliffe, John

Warren, Kenneth

Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Weatherill, Bernard

Rees, Peter (Dover)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

Tebbit, Norman

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

Wiggin, Jerry

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

Wilkinson, John

Rost, Peter

Trafford, Dr, Anthony

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Royle, Anthony

Tugendhat, Christopher

Woodnutt, Mark

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

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Worsley, Marcus

Shelton, William (Clapham)

van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Sproat, lain

Vickers, Dame Joan

Mr. Paul Hawkins and

Stanbrook, Ivor

Waddington, David

Mr. Keith Speed.

Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

Walder, David (Clitheroe)

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

Orme, Stanley

Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

Heffer, Eric S.

Palmer, Arthur

Atkinson, Norman

Hooson, Emlyn

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Horam, John

Pavitt, Laurie

Barnes, Michael

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Pendry, Tom

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Pentland, Norman

Boardman, H. (Leigh)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

Perry, Ernest G.

Booth, Albert

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

Prescott, John

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

Janner, Greville

Probert, Arthur

Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

Cant, R. B.

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

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

Jonn, Brynmor

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Clark, David (Colne Valley)

Jones, Dan (Burley)

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

Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

Rose, Paul B.

Concannon, J. D.

Judd, Frank

Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

Conlan. Bernard

Kaufman, Gerald

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

Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

Kerr, Russell

Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

Davidson. Arthur

Kinnock, Neil

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Latham, Arthur

Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Lestor, Miss Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

Lipton, Marcus

Spearing, Nigel

Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

Lomas, Kenneth

Stallard, A. W.

Deakins, Eric

Loughlin, Charles

Stoddart, David (Swindon)

de Freitas. Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Strang, Gavin

Delargv, H. J.

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Dell, Rt Hn. Edmund

McBride, Neil

Taverne, Dick

Dormand, J. D.

Mackie, John

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Mackintosh, John P.

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

Dunnett, Jack

Maclennan, Robert

Torney, Tom

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Urwin, T. W.

Evans, Fred

Marks, Kenneth

Wainwright, Edwin

Faulds, Andrew

Marshall, Dr. Edmund

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

Meacher, Michael

Watkins, David

Foley, Maurice

Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

Weitzman, David

Foot, Michael

Mendelson, John

Wellbeloved, James

Forrester, John

Mikardo, Ian

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Garrett, W. E.

Millan, Bruce

Whitehead, Phillip

Golding, John

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

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

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Woof, Robert

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

Hardy, Peter

Moyle, Roland

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Mr. Joseph Harper and

Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

O'Malley, Brian

Mr. William Hamling.

Resolved,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Beef and Veal) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 802), dated 13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Milk and Milk Products) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 803), dated
1760
13th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.—[Mr. Prior.]
Resolved,
That the Fatstock (Guarantee Payments) (Amendment) Order 1971 (SX, 1971, No. 801), dated 14th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th May, be approved.—[Mr. Prior.]
Resolved,
That the Import Duties (General) (No. 3) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 851), dated 20th May 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.—[Mr. Prior.]

CARAVAN SITES (FIRE PRECAUTIONS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
11.55 p.m.
Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I am glad of this opportunity to raise what I believe to be a serious matter, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for his presence at this late hour. I am endeavouring to draw to his attention the need for improved and more easily enforceable fire precautionary requirements for caravan sites, and I realise that these could be applied only to residential sites and not to holiday sites or those occupied largely by itinerants.
My interest in this matter was first aroused by a tragedy which occurred in my constituency in which a man was burned to death in a caravan fire on an eminently respectable residential site. Although in this case most of the site fire-fighting equipment was faulty or nonexistent, nothing could have been done to save this man's life by the time the fire was discovered. Gloucester Fire Brigade, probably the finest in the country, reached the site within four minutes of being summoned, which was considerably faster than most brigades could have got there.
The number of caravan fires throughout the country has been increasing, and this tragedy has drawn my attention to the need in 1971 to review the 1960 model standards. I am particularly indebted to the Chief Fire Officer of Gloucester, Mr. Kenneth Harden, for his expert advice and the practical help which he is presently giving at caravan sites throughout Gloucester.
It is generally felt that the model standards appertaining to the Caravan Sites and Control of Developments Act, 1960, were not only inadequate but were issued in a general atmosphere of laissez-faire. In Section 5(1) of the Act local authorities are required to impose only such conditions
"as they consider necessary or desirable "
1762
As I have pointed out in Questions, Circulars 42/60 and 2/62 advised local authorities that standards should not be applied too rigidly or automatically, even where this would seem appropriate. In addition, site owners were positively encouraged under the Act to appeal against any conditions they considered to be onerous. This has resulted in a great variation and inconsistency in site licences issued by various local authorities throughout the country, and many of them are in need of urgent review.
For example, I have heard of one site licence which specifies that 100-gallon water tanks should be supplied, though it does not specify that they should be filled with water. Although the Caravan Sites and Control of Developments Act refers in Section 5 (1) (e) to the need for fire-fighting equipment to be well maintained, the model standards do not.
If, therefore, site licences are inadequate in the first place, it becomes impossible to enforce the full conditions in the model standards or to find site owners who are in default. The model standards have come to be regarded as a maximum rather than a minimum requirement in the issue of site licences, and the implementation of the recommendations in the model standards depends to a great extent on the interpretation of the local authority.
Item 1 of the model standards specifies a distance of 20 ft. between caravans, but does not exclude the subsequent building of permanent extensions to caravans, and these might greatly diminish this distance. My hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of this point because of the risk of fire spreading by radiated heat. It would not, therefore, seem unreasonable to extend the required distance to 25 ft. The specification of 100-gallon tanks every two acres under Section 5 of the Act seems out-of-date in view of the fact that the latest wheel-barrow pumps deliver at the rate of 100 gallons a minute.
However, because tanks, water buckets and hand pumps are not conducive to quick action by either elderly or untrained operators, it is thought probably more effective, in terms of taking swift first-aid action, that three or four large fire extinguishers should be located at the fire points in place of the water pumps, but whatever equipment is provided must be

1763
properly protected from the elements. The main recommendation from many fire experts is that large fire extinguishers, ideally in each caravan, are the best form of protection.
The June issue of Caravan Industry and Park Operator, in a front-page story, refers to the problems involved in dealing with caravan fires swiftly before the fire brigade arrives. It points out that fire experts agree on the necessity for large extinguishers either in individual caravans or for communal use.
Another important consideration is the fact that not only is the danger of caravan fires greater than that of a permanent structure but the rate at which the fire develops is much faster. In an article in the Birmingham Post on 25th May this year, entitled.
"Only Five Minutes to Escape Death",
attention is drawn to the recently published report of the Fire Research Station at Boreham Wood. The most important result of this was that it was found that, as caravans are constructed at present, if one does not get out of the caravan within five minutes of the fire starting one does not get out at all. Clearly, that is not sufficient time for elderly people or young families, especially if the fire starts, as it so often does, when they are asleep.
I feel, therefore, that improvements could be made to British Standard 3632/1970, which relates to the materials used in the construction of caravans. This could be done by Regulations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1961. For example, British Standard 3632 states that the outer skin and internal linings, other than those dealt with in the code of practice, should not be less than grade 3, which are surfaces of medium flame spread, as defined by British Standard 476. But, once again, it is the opinion of fire experts that these linings should not be less than class 1, surfaces of very low flame spread, and that this standard should also be applied to the outer skin.
The other great problem of caravan sites is the storage of explosive and inflammable materials, for example, propane gas cylinders. Possibly the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Fire Precautions Act should be applied here.
1764
Also the provision should be made that spare propane cylinders must be stored at all times in clearly marked fire-proof lockers which could be opened only from inside the caravan for security purposes.
The other point that I wish to make is that I believe that the issue of a site licence by a local authority should be subject to a fire certificate similar to that referred to in the relevant sections of the Fire Precautions Act, 1971, which under Section 35(b) gives power to apply this Act to movable structures. This would deal with two aspects of the problem at once. It would relieve the Public Health Inspectorate, which is not really appropriate, of the duty of ruling on fire precautions and carrying out inspections of them on caravan sites, and it would place these duties in the hands of the real experts, the local fire prevention staff, who could issue the fire certificates and carry out the initial inspections, which could subsequently be carried out by other officers of the fire brigade under Section 11(d) of the Fire Services Act, because, of course, regular inspection and testing of fire-fighting equipment is vital.
I have been assured by the Chief Fire Officer in Gloucester that this is well within the capacity of most brigades throughout the country. Indeed, following the recent tragedy in Gloucester, officers are not only carrying out such inspections routinely but are training caravan site residents in fire-fighting drill.
In contrast to the various technicalities that I have discussed, it might be helpful to my hon. Friend if I read a letter, one of many that I have received from all over the country, from a constituent of mine. The letter explains far more graphically than I could do the need for a greater distance between caravans. It reads as follows:
"My wife and I left Gloucester to visit our daughter … who is an owner-occupier living on a small caravan site … in Berkshire …
At 4.30 early on Easter Sunday morning our daughter awoke almost stifled by heat and fumes and a glare through the French doors frosted glass. She quickly went to the kitchen window and saw that the next caravan, which was empty, was on fire from end to end. Luckily, she had a phone and dialled 999 to the fire brigade at Maidenhead, nearly four miles away, and then woke us up and told us to dress quickly, which we did. As we watched and wondered what best to do, the

1765
whole of the burning caravan disintegrated into one great mass of flame blowing in our direction by the wind. Then the cable overhead that supplies the electricity went with a great flash and was blowing about in the wind like a flaming torch.
Then police patrol cars started to arrive, and we were strongly advised to get out at once owing to the danger from the butane gas cylinders. There was one in the fire and two attached to our caravan.
The police tried to use the ½-inch hose nearby, but there was no adaptor to fit it to the water supply. More police arrived and two fire engines with their own water tanks arrived and were soon in action, but they could do nothing to save the burning caravan but saved us from further damage. However, all our windows were cracked, the spouting melted and the cedar wood sides scorched, and all the aluminium panels blistered and buckled. The damage to my daughter's caravan was £195.
The firemen fixed an adaptor to the site hose before they left, but later in the morning I tried it out and it would only send a weak jet about 6 ft., not much use.
According to the site manager, Cookham Council, who are responsible for Bray district where there are several caravan sites, specified the distance between vans needs to be only 20 feet",
which is in accordance with the specifications in the model standards, but, as my constituent says—
"obviously not enough if we suffered nearly £200 damage."
My constituent says also that the council specified:
"only … 100 ft. of ½-inch hose, which is practically useless unless it is a very small fire …
We really had a very narrow escape and would not like a similar experience to happen to anyone, so hope some much more strict regulations could be passed to safeguard lives in the future."
It is interesting to note that in the fatal caravan fire in Gloucester the next caravan was 21 feet away but was affected by the heat and would have become ignited but for the very prompt arrival of the fire brigade. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider adjusting the model standards to include a new regulation as to increased distance between caravans at least in the issue of new site licences.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for his patience and consideration in taking part in this debate tonight. I hope he will feel able to recommend all or some of the suggestions that I have made for improvements in the model standards and other regulations to my right hon. Friend
1766
to safeguard the lives and the property of the many thousands of residents of caravan sites throughout the country.
12.3 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am grateful for the courteous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Sally Oppenheim) informed me of some of the points that she intended to make and for the way in which she has presented to the House the very valuable contribution she has made on this subject.
I shall refer to a number of detailed points, but I assure my hon. Friend that I will study carefully all that she has said and write to her afterwards. There are a certain number of points that I want to make in reference to the whole question of fires in caravans and safety precautions and to the case which has prompted my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I agree with my hon. Friend that the tragedy to which she referred probably was beyond the control of any safety regulations. Indeed, the alacrity with which the Gloucester Fire Brigade appeared is to be commended.
As I understand that situation, an elderly man went to bed and, it is presumed, smoked, and fell asleep with the cigarette still alight, and as a result the bedding caught fire. There is bound to be an element of conjecture about it, but one must say in all the regrettable circumstances of the tragedy that in regulation terms that sort of thing is uncontrollable. I wish that such things did not happen, but I doubt whether one could devise a form of protection which would absolutely eliminate the chance of such a situation occurring. Any comments one might make about precautions on the site are not relevant here. I do not think that in the circumstances more could have been done, and even if some discrepancies appeared during an investigation of the various precautions, I doubt whether if all the apparatus had been in tip-top condition, and available, it would have made much difference.
But perhaps we can consider the size of the problem and see how many occurrences of this sort take place, because everyone realises that caravan touring and the growth of permanently licensed

1767
sites is an increasing phenomenon giving a great deal of pleasure to an increasing number of citizens.
Casualties in fires in caravans attended by the fire brigades for the years 1967, 1968 and 1969 were, respectively, 21 deaths and 56 injuries; 10 deaths and 52 injuries, and 10 deaths and 50 injuries. The number of fires in caravans which did not necessarily lead to injuries were, in the same three years, 883, 956 and 992. The growth in these figures probably reflects the increase in the number of caravans.
As my hon. Friend said, the relevant legislation is contained in the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960. This Act introduced a form of licensing control which has obviously greatly improved the situation which existed before then. Following on the Act, we also specified in 1960 model standards for services and facilities on caravan sites, and these were standards normally to be expected as a matter of good practice. Local authorities are required by the Act to have regard to these standards when imposing conditions under the site licences which they issue for private caravan sites.
Obviously the model standards are concerned with measures to prevent, contain and confine fires. They were drawn up in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and it is true, as my hon. Friend said, that they have not been revised since they were introduced in 1960. We consider that the most serious problem is not the review of standards but their enforcement, but will undertake that they will be looked at again by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
My hon. Friend made the point, with which I certainly would not disagree, that the local authorities are not bound to impose the standards on site operators, and some flexibility in the application of all the model standards has always been urged upon local authorities. There are various reasons for this, and one of them is the very wide range of caravans which may exist on a particular site. We felt that in view of the need for flexibility it would be wrong to have some sort of mandatory imposition of uniform requirements.
1768
As to fire prevention and fire fighting standards, the Minister of Housing and Local Government in the previous Administration, again in consultation with the Home Secretary of that time, advised licensing authorities less than three years ago that they should keep fire authorities informed of plans to create new caravan sites, and applications for licences and the conditions with which they proposed to attach to them. This was, exactly as my hon. Friend would require, to enable fire authorities to advise on the nature of the proposed site, and the conditions and the various ways in which the standards were to be carried out, and generally to give advice on the best means of dealing with fire precautions at that time.
It is our opinion that the advice has been generally followed. Certainly we think that it was the right way to go about it. But my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that we propose to supplement this advice by asking licensing authorities to review site licences which they have already issued to make sure that suitable conditions concerning fire precautions exist in them and to consult the fire officers if any new conditions need to be imposed. We also intend to remind licensing authorities about the need to ensure that site operators not only supply the equipment required but keep it in the right place and in good working condition.
The question of fire-fighting arrangements at a caravan site is distinct from the problem of fire precautions within the caravan itself. The Home Secretary keeps the question of fire safety in individual caravans permanently under review. In the vast majority of cases the single most likely contributing factor to increased safety is the personal determination of the owners and occupiers of caravans to behave in a sensible and practical manner.
My hon. Friend said that it took about five minutes to get out of a burning caravan. My figure would be less—between three and four minutes. But as somebody who every year spends a week in his caravan touring his constituency I can say that it would not take me more than three seconds to get out of my caravan, and that must be so in virtually every caravan that one has ever set foot. If one was fast asleep, it might prove fatal. But one has to consider the sort of causes of fire when one is fast asleep. In

1769
the overwhelming majority of cases, there would be personal responsibility for not having taken adequate steps to ensure elementary safety precautions.
We firmly believe that the primary need for caravan dwellers is a high standard of safe behaviour. It is not just a question of ensuring that the gas is out or that cigarettes have been extinguished. Things which, in a fit of enthusiasm for do-it-yourself, we might add can be a source of danger. We might allow towelling curtains or clothing to be placed too close to a source of heat which could cause fire. Obviously we are likely to do many things to our caravans which could be a danger, whatever standards are laid down.
The Home Office promotes fire prevention publicity, and there is a booklet which deals with the danger of fires in caravans. Standards have been drawn up by the British Standards Institution dealing with the means of escape, the fire resistance of linings, the safe installation of heating appliances, and so on. Most caravan manufacturers comply with them. A recent addition to them, included at the request of the Home Office, is a require-
1770
ment for a warning notice to be permanently fixed in a prominent place inside the caravan. This gives basic instructions on what to do in the event of fire and includes a few simple fire precautions which people with common sense would, I am sure, take themselves.
The British Standard also recommends the provision of fire extinguishers in caravans, although this is not a statutory requirement. Means for fighting fires are obviously useful for dealing with incipient fires and could well be a supplement to the fire-fighting appliances on the site. But extinguishers are no substitute for the good sense which should be exercised in a caravan and which would prevent the danger of fire breaking out.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make these comments. I assure her that I shall look carefully at her detailed points and will write to her about them as soon as I can.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Alimony and Maintenance (Court Orders)
  Alimony and Maintenance (Court Orders)
  Arson and Fire Raising
  Arson and Fire Raising
  Street Offences Act
  Street Offences Act
  Criminal Cases (Inquiries)
  Criminal Cases (Inquiries)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Police Authorities
  Police Authorities
  Supermarkets (Store Detectives)
  Supermarkets (Store Detectives)
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Probation Officers
  Probation Officers
  Totalisator Board (Betting Levy)
  Totalisator Board (Betting Levy)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Electorates)
  Parliamentary Constituencies (Electorates)
  Community Relations Committees
  Community Relations Committees
  Maintenance Orders
  Maintenance Orders
  Crime (London)
  Crime (London)
  Gaming Clubs (Mafia Infiltration)
  Gaming Clubs (Mafia Infiltration)
  Police Powers (Arrest and Search)
  Police Powers (Arrest and Search)
  Metropolitan Police (Employment of Civilians)
  Metropolitan Police (Employment of Civilians)
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Training (North-East)
  Industrial Training (North-East)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Careers Officers (Northern Region)
  Careers Officers (Northern Region)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Pay)
  Yorkshire and Humberside (Pay)
  Carmarthenshire (Unemployed Young Persons)
  Carmarthenshire (Unemployed Young Persons)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Scotland (Pay)
  Scotland (Pay)
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Mexborough and Wombwell
  Mexborough and Wombwell
DEFENCE
  Radio Communications Establishment, Orfordness
  Radio Communications Establishment, Orfordness
  Q.A.R.N.N.S. (Housekeeping Duties Grade)
  Q.A.R.N.N.S. (Housekeeping Duties Grade)
  Citadel Barracks, Plymouth
  Citadel Barracks, Plymouth
  Royal Dockyards (Recruitment)
  Royal Dockyards (Recruitment)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Prices
  Prices
  Rinco U.K. Limited
  Rinco U.K. Limited
  Video Tape Recordings (Export Licences)
  Video Tape Recordings (Export Licences)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Official Tour)
  Chancellor of the Exchequer (Official Tour)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Moslems (British Official Handbook)
  Moslems (British Official Handbook)
  Migration to Australia and West Indies
  Migration to Australia and West Indies
  India and East Pakistan (Refugees)
  India and East Pakistan (Refugees)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Debt (Imprisonment)
  Debt (Imprisonment)
  Mental Patients (Beds)
  Mental Patients (Beds)
  Gonodotrophin
  Gonodotrophin
  Pharmaceuticals (Departmental Staff)
  Pharmaceuticals (Departmental Staff)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Leicester (Girls on Remand)
  Leicester (Girls on Remand)
  Sickness and Unemployment Benefit
  Sickness and Unemployment Benefit
  Four-Week Rule (List of Towns)
  Four-Week Rule (List of Towns)
  Invalidity Allowances
  Invalidity Allowances
  Cigarettes (Warning Notices)
  Cigarettes (Warning Notices)
ENVIRONMENT
  South Wales—South-East England (Road Links)
  South Wales—South-East England (Road Links)
  Urban Motorways (Noise)
  Urban Motorways (Noise)
  Felling Urban District Council (Appeals)
  Felling Urban District Council (Appeals)
  Eastern Ring Road, Manchester
  Eastern Ring Road, Manchester
  National Bus Company (Chairman)
  National Bus Company (Chairman)
  Housing, Southampton
  Housing, Southampton
  Council House Building
  Council House Building
WALES
  South Wales-Midlands (Road Link)
  South Wales-Midlands (Road Link)
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Investment in Industry
  Investment in Industry
  Development Plan System
  Development Plan System
  COURT OF APPEAL
  COURT OF APPEAL
    LOCKHEED TRISTAR
    LOCKHEED TRISTAR
    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
    PRIME MINISTER AND PRESIDENT POMPIDOU (TALKS)
    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    INDIA AND EAST PAKISTAN (AID)
    INDIA AND EAST PAKISTAN (AID)
    MACCLESFIELD
    MACCLESFIELD
    NORTHERN IRELAND (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW)
    NORTHERN IRELAND (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW)
    UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS LIMITED
    UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS LIMITED
    NORTHERN IRELAND (OFFICIAL VISIT)
    NORTHERN IRELAND (OFFICIAL VISIT)
    INTERNATIONAL DISASTER FORCE
    INTERNATIONAL DISASTER FORCE
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  White Fish (Landings)
  White Fish (Landings)
  Milk Products
  Milk Products
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  A5 Underpass (Dunstable)
  A5 Underpass (Dunstable)
  Classrooms (Size)
  Classrooms (Size)
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Television Reception (Lampeter)
  Television Reception (Lampeter)
SCOTLAND
  Nurses, Lanarkshire
  Nurses, Lanarkshire
  Crofter Counties (Roads)
  Crofter Counties (Roads)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)
  Museums and Galleries (Admission Charges)

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

FAMILY COURTS
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to make for the constitution of local family courts, and, if so, what they are.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLERONE): My Lords, the possibility of constituting new courts with jurisdiction in family matters falls within Item XIX of the Law Commission's Second Programme of Law Reform. It is expected that the Commission will be in a position to undertake, in consultation with the Government Departments and other bodies affected, a detailed study of the questions involved later this year.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, while thanking- the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I ask him first, knowing his great interest in families, whether he does not think it has always been anomalous that disputes between husband and wife as to separation and maintenance, and so on, should be decided in the local criminal court? Secondly, does he not think that, following the establishment of a Family Division in the High Court. it would be a natural corollary that we should have local family courts? If this is so, is it a reform which he expects to be able to get through during his tenure of office?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, considering how long I hope my tenure of office will be, I am very hopeful indeed. I am reluctant to prejudge
980
the outcome of the study by the Law Commission. A predecessor of mine said that law reform was either by consent or not at all. I am generally favourable to the idea contained in the proposal. It is an extremely complex subject and there are a large number of interested bodies and, incidentally, a large number of Government Departments who will have to be consulted. The Law Commission have not a particularly easy task in front of them, but they have my good will.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that the law of chance is the determining matter in tenure?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord repeat that question? I did not hear it.

B.B.C. BROADCASTS TO AFRICA
3.8 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that other nations, especially the Russians, Germans and Chinese, broadcast to South Africa, and to Africa generally, more frequently than does Britain; and whether they will consider whether, in view of our considerable strategic, trade and other interests in Africa, and especially in Southern Africa, an increase in our broadcast services in English and in the vernacular languages would be justified.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the figures at Her Majesty's Government's disposal do not bear out the contention that the other nations mentioned by my noble friend broadcast more frequently to Africa than the B.B.C. The total number of hours of programmes broadcast for Africa by our external services is, so far as we can ascertain, greater than the totals broadcast by the services of the other countries. Furthermore, audience research leads us to believe that the B.B.C.'s

981
broadcasts to Africa are no less effective than those of their competitors.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I am glad to be corrected. May I ask the noble Marquess to realise that in the Republic of South Africa, to give one example, 60 per cent. of the people speak Afrikaans as their first language and many coloured Africans prefer Afrikaans to English, and that there is, therefore, still a case for giving Afrikaans a turn instead of only English?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I entirely take the point raised by my noble friend. This is something which I am certain Her Majesty's Government will look into.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, in broadcasting to South Africa, can we emphasise our abhorrence of apartheid?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, before the noble Marquess answers, may I beg noble Lords in all parts of the House not to make Party expositions, especially in relation to other countries, when they are quite unnecessary?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the content of the B.B.C.'s external broadcasts are matters for the B.B.C. themselves.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House for how many hours weekly broadcasts are now being made in the Bantu langauge, and whether he has any means of ascertaining what their effect has been?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have the figures for the number of hours broadcast in the Bantu language, but I will let the noble Lord know about this matter.
LORD REA: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the amount of broadcasting has gone down or up since the immediate post-war period? Are we still broadcasting as much as we did to that area?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, without being fully aware of the situation, I am not aware that the hours have gone down; but I will check on that and let the noble Lord know.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that to try to
982
measure the amount of broadcasting to foreign countries by the number of broadcasts is absolutely ridiculous? It is the quality of the broadcasts which counts, not the number of broadcasts made.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has made that point. This is something which is absolutely true, and I do not think there is the slightest doubt that the quality of the broadcasts by the B.B.C., in their external services, is very high and is highly appreciated.

WAGE SETTLEMENTS AND RATES OF INCREASE
3.12 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now give the evidence on which they base their contention that wage settlements are now running at a reduced level.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the evidence is to be found in the monthly indices of wage rates and of earnings published in the Department of Employment Gazette. According to these, the annual rates of increase in basic wage rates and average earnings which at the beginning of this year were both above 14 per cent., are now running at about 12½ per cent. and 12 per cent respectively. Many of the major pay settlements notified to the Department of Employment so far this year have been about 10 per cent.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him whether this means that the reticence which his noble colleague exhibited on the last occasion when a Question of this kind was put down is now to be abandoned and we can have actual information on the level of wage settlements?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, what I am saying, with respect to the noble Baroness, is that the evidence was there all the time.

ARMY CADET FORCE UNITS IN APPROVED SCHOOLS
3 p.m.
SS WOOTTON OF ABINGERds, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the fact that Army Cadet Force units are to be disbanded in borstal institutions, similar action will be taken in approved schools.]
NISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)Lords; the circumstances are quite different. In a number of boys' approved schools cadet force units have had an established place for many years, and have enabled the boys to share in youth activities available to others of their age in the community.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords. while thanking the Minister for his far from satisfactory Answer, may I ask him whether it is not an entirely illogical decision that this form of military training should be abandoned in borstal institutions and maintained in institutions which cater for young offenders generally in a younger age group? May I also ask him whether he is aware that, so far as I know, the only serious incident that has resulted from the use of firearms in institutions for young offenders occurred in an approved school where the inmates raided the armoury, obtained weapons and murdered one of the masters?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not find this a satisfactory Answer. I thought it was a very satisfactory Answer. There are very considerable differences, I would suggest, between approved schools and borstals. Schoolboys at approved schools are not convicted offenders; they are only one section of all children in care, and it would be wrong to discriminate against them when their fellows may be in foster homes or in children's homes and in similar institutions in the community. Secondly, of course, boys in care move in and out of approved schools, unlike borstals, and take part in outside
984
activities—even going home for time—and there are many other reasons why they differ. Another reason, for example, is that very rarely does a borstal boy go into the Armed Forces, whereas recruitment from approved school boys is quite a normal affair.
On the question of security, I think the noble Baroness must have been referring to a case in 1948, since when very different security precautions are taken. The rifles are stored in a locked armoury, without their bolts, and no ammunition is held on the premises.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that approved schools are now to become community homes, under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969; and, in those circumstances, would it not be better if special cadet forces as such were disbanded and the boys in community homes under the new Act simply took part in the range of activities that exist in the communities where the homes were situated?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in our opinion the Army Cadet Force and the Air Training Corps, if I may bring them in too, are doing a splendid job for these young people. Their training goes very wide of purely military training and we very much value the contribution they have to make.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, it was certainly not my intention in the supplementary question to comment on the value of the training given. The point I was trying to make to the noble Lord was that approved schools are no longer to be segregated institutions; they are to be part of the range of facilities provided in the community for children in care or children in trouble. This is really my question. Is the policy of the noble Lord's Department to continue to segregate these boys in special groups of cadet forces, or to allow them to take part in cadet force work or any other type of youth activity with other members of the community among whom they will in future be residing?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very sorry that I misunderstood the noble Baroness's point. Certainly it would be very much to be welcomed if they took part in the community army cadet forces and other such activities.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord take one step further and say that participation in community corps of this kind should be subsituted for any training which is centred solely on the approved school? Would he not agree that, although, as he says, there are many children in approved schools—and there will be many more when they become community homes—who are not found guilty of offences in the court, there are also children there who have been so found guilty? Furthermore, could the noble Lord give an assurance that no live ammunition is contained anywhere in approved schools?
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; I can give that assurance categorically. Of course, in particular cases of particular boys, it is in the discretion of the managers of the school not to allow them to take part in military activities.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in view of the fact that a boy when recruited into the Services will receive training in the use of firearms as part of his overall training, why is it necessary to train in the use of firearms those who are not going to be recruited to the Services?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, it is part of the Army Cadet Force's and Air Training Corp's syllabus of training that they are trained in the use of firearms; it is part of the background of these voluntary bodies.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether attendance at these training units is compulsory for any class of boy?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords, it is entirely voluntary.
Loan FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is it not an honourable duty, much to be respected, that any young person should be taught to take care of the interests and indeed the safety of his country?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is of course the background to both these corps that they give a training in citizenship and for protection of Queen and country.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, whether
986
or not his answers may have sounded unsatisfactory to various noble Baronesses opposite, they will be received with great satisfaction by those who know of the work of the Army Cadet Force perhaps rather better than the noble Baronesses concerned? Is my noble friend also aware that the Force benefits considerably by those who come from approved schools and who have received pre-Service training?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for those words of support from my noble friend, although I think the noble Baroness opposite does know what this Force does. I think that she is objecting on grounds of principle.

E.E.C.: TERMS FOR BRITISH PARTICI PATION
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the Common Market shortly after 3.30 p.m.
FLINTSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SCUNTHORPE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 36 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next for the purpose of enabling the Lord Drumalbyn's Motion on the Code of Industrial Relations Practice to be taken before the National Insurance Bill and the Industrial Relations Bill.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is this the right point at which to ask what the Motion says?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I think the noble Lord will find it on the Order Paper.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am really asking what the Motion means.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is a question which should be asked of the mover of the Motion, and not the Lord Chancellor.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I thought it was fairly clear from the Order Paper. This is merely to enable the Code to be discussed before we get on to the Report stage of the Industrial Relations Bill.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Ah, my Lords; I am happy now!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS PROCEDURE
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as we have just passed a Motion on the Business of the House may I ask the noble Lord the Deputy Leader of the House whether he can help us by telling us how the Government mean to deal with the business this afternoon? It seems as a matter of Parliamentary procedure that there could be a duplication of some sort if the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, moves his Motion after the Second Reading. It might then be necessary for one of us to move the previous Question.Erskine May, at page 362, says:
"No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which its judgment has already been expressed."
Can the noble Earl help us on this point?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, for raising this matter. I freely agree that it seems a somewhat strange procedure, but I have taken advice on the matter and in my view our procedure is not out of order as it is set down on the Order Paper; indeed, it has certain practical advantages. The noble Lord quoted from Erskine May. If he looks a little further down on the same page he will see the words:
988
"Whether the rule would apply as between a motion and a bill is a difficult matter to decide".
"Then it goes on:
"The question has, however, been raised, but so far without a case for the application of the rule having been made out."
So my advice to the House is that this Motion following a Second Reading is not out of order, and I think it has certain practical advantages, in that we have always tried to observe the convention, between the two main Parties, at any rate, that we do not divide against the Second Reading of a Bill for which the Government have had a mandate in a General Election. Yet there may well be some of your Lordships, in dealing with a Bill of this sort—and indeed there were on the Industrial Relations Bill—who wish to register a vote against it. If we proceed as I understand the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, intends to proceed in this case, which is that he will move his Motion formally without further debate after the Second Reading, that will give the opportunity to those of your Lordships who feel that we should continue to observe what I think is a useful and valuable convention and at the same time to register your votes on the Motion.
However, my Lords, I would suggest that as this is a difficult situation, which has arisen also on the Industrial Relations Bill, it would be advisable if we were to refer the whole matter to the Procedure Committee, and in the meantime to proceed to-day as the business is on the Order Paper.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I certainly would not disagree that this is a matter which could be sent to the Procedure Committee, but I think it is fair to say, first of all, that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is not a member of the official Opposition. I think it is also important to point out that his Motion was on the Order Paper before this Bill in fact received a First Reading in this House. I hope that none of us would ever question the right of any individual Member of this House to put down on the Order Paper a Motion that he felt the House ought to consider. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, intends to press his Motion to a Division: that will be entirely up to him.

989
My Lords, while not disagreeing with the suggestion that the matter should be sent to the Procedure Committee I hope it will be the view of this House that nothing should in any way preclude any Member of this House from putting down on the Order Paper anything which he thinks is right and which is within the rules of this House.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lords who have sprung to my defence for their gracious words. I will not make a speech now, but I will explain when I make my speech later on what I am trying to do. All I will say now is that what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said about the intention of my Motion was absolutely correct.

STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

IMMIGRATION BILL
3.29 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, this is the third time in ten years that Her Majesty's Government have found it necessary to introduce a Bill about immigration. Unlike its two predecessors, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1968, this Bill does not bring under control any further categories of Commonwealth citizens, or of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Let us be clear from the start that no one who is now exempt from immigration control will be made subject to it by this Bill. What it does, in the words of the Long Title, is to "amend and replace the present immigration laws". It consolidates the present tangle of legislation into a single statute.
The need for improvement in this branch of the law has been recognised by Parliament for a long time. Each year when in both Houses of Parliament, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has been debated, noble Lords on both sides of the House have criticised the unsatisfactory, piecemeal and, above all, temporary nature of the assortment of statutes and orders
990
which currently constitute the basis of our immigration control. We need look no further back than last December to find the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chanceller, saying of the Government's intention to legislate in this field:
"I am very glad to recognize that at long last we are to have comprehensive immigration laws ".—[Official Report, 1/12/70, col. 424.]
Lord Gardiner was supported, among others, by Lord Walston, speaking with considerable experience of community relations, who welcomed the concept of the Bill saying:
"I am very happy to hear…of the proposed new Bill: I am sure it is long overdue ".—(col. 425)
I must not mislead the House by claiming that either of the noble Lords opposite to whom I have referred is necessarily a wholehearted supporter of the present Bill—both will be speaking later on in the debate. But if we are genuinely concerned to seek common ground in this controversial and emotive area we can, I think, agree at least on a starting point; namely, the general desirability of setting out, clearly and simply in one comprehensive Statute, the law controlling immigration into this country.
On what principles then should such a measure be based? First, I would suggest, it should be as short and as explicit as possible. Second, it must have regard to the sheer practicalities of immigration control in an era of mass travel. Third, it should take account both of our Commonwealth connections and of Britain's present and future relations with other countries. Fourth, it should make no distinction between immigrants on grounds of race or colour. I believe that all of these propositions are likely to command wide support in your Lordships' House. I shall return to the first two later on, for they are features which help towards an understanding of the Bill which is now before us. But it is the last two, my Lords, which make us so sensitive, so uneasy, in considering what should be the approach to legislation in this matter.
Ever since the first Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1962 the primary purpose of the control of immigration has been to limit the numbers of people admitted into this country to a level that could be assimilated. In the debates

991
ten years ago Parliament had to reconcile the desire to maintain unrestricted entry from the Commonwealth—the traditional and honourable policy of the " open door"—with the equally worthy desire to counter an intensified social problem. This lay in the urgent need to improve the standards of housing, of public health, of schools. of social services, especially in the decaying and often deprived inner city areas. Policies came into conflict because it was in precisely these areas that considerable numbers of immigrants from the new Commonwealth were tending to establish themselves with their families. It was pointed out that in these circumstances the greater the numbers of Commonwealth immigrants corning into this country, the more difficult would be the task of improving these areas and integrating their new inhabitants into our national life.
Both at that time—in 1962—and later, spokesmen for the Government and Opposition Parties made clear that this was no one-way obligation. We owed then, and we owe now, an acknowledgement—more than that, a debt—to those who came from overseas, sometimes at our invitation, to work in parts of this country where labour was in short supply: to keep the buses going; to staff the hospitals; to work, and work unbelievably hard at times, in foundries, textile mills and food factories. I believe that this consciousness was one of the factors which led to the emergence of more positive and considered policies towards community relations. These rested on the fundamental belief that, questions of economic utility apart, Commonwealth citizents and their wives and children, who had already made their homes in this country or who, after the 1962 Act became law came here under the voucher scheme for work and settlement, must be accepted in our society without discrimination. This ideal, easy to state but very difficult to live up to, needed underpinning. Two Race Relations Acts were passed; voluntary bodies were given statutory backing and finance. But action of this kind was not enough on its own. To facilitate the process of integration, and to help mitigate the tension and incipient conflicts, immigration controls were applied to reduce the numbers arriving to a rate at which they, and those who
992
came before them, could reasonably anticipate a decent life, free from privation and free from prejudice, in a country to which often they had come with such high hopes.
I speak in no Party spirit. It would be foolish to overlook the strong differences of opinion that emerged during the passage of the 1962 Act by a Conservative Government, or of the 1968 Act by the Labour Government; and which we are seeing again now. Immigration is a subject that inspires strongly held and deeply motivated opinions. Some of these are expressed and made articulate in a reasoned way. We hear them in this House. Others may be based on resentment or envy, or perhaps just lack of comprehension, but are nonetheless sincerely held.
Public opinion, in this sense, has never dominated public policy in our political system. But no responsible Government during the last decade could possibly have refrained from taking very carefully into account, when formulating its policy. the various strands of public opinion on this particular issue. Having done so, successive Governments have introduced whatever measures they have considered necessary to ensure that the rate of immigration, a main cause of tension and friction, was kept within bounds. These bounds (or limitations or restrictions—use whatever word we like to choose) were justified in order to make practicable the fulfilment of policies aimed at lessening tension, and working towards its eradication both as regards the immigrant communities and those among whom they had made their homes. This ideal, this objective of social policy, is surely no less admirable than that of an "open-door" immigration policy? The difficulty, of course, lies in reconciling the two.
If this has been the justification, as I believe it has, for imposing controls over Commonwealth citizens, including certain categories of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (aliens had already been subject to control for more than half a century) we turn next to the question of what these bounds should be. Part of the answer is numerical. The previous Administration believed that the rate of entry from the Commonwealth had to be greatly reduced—in the interests of the policies I have just

993
explained. Thus, whereas in 1965, 57,000 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for work and settlement (a figure which excludes visitors and students), the total fell, until in 1970 it was 36,700.
I hope that in the debate this afternoon and in later stages of the Bill we will not get too pre-occupied with numbers. The Bill is concerned with the principles underlying immigration control and not with numbers. However, the feeling that there may again be immigration on a large scale is a root cause of disquiet among the indigenous population of this country. It really does not matter for the purposes of this argument whether or not we agree with this disquiet. That it exists is a fact. It is therefore necessary, in the interests of better community relations, that people should have assurances that there will be no further large scale immigration and that the law has been put on to a permanent footing which is adequate—and demonstrably adequate—to ensure that immigration for settlement in the future will be firmly, but flexibly, kept under control. So long as a belief persists that our immigration controls are obscure and capable of widespread evasion it will be difficult to concentrate attention in a constructive and tolerant way on the urgent problems that demand our attention. That was the basis of the policy contained in the Conservative Party Manifesto, and that is the basis of the Bill which we have now introduced in fulfilment of our undertaking.
The Bill proposes a new single system of control over all immigration from overseas to which everyone will be subject except those people who have a close connection, in the sense of a personal or ancestral connection, with this country. Clause 2 of the Bill sets out certain categories of people who have what is described as a right of abode. This is a positive concept which carries with it exemption from immigration control. Something on these lines was necessary in that, unlike most other countries, there is no separate citizenship of the United Kingdom to which exemption from immigration control can be directly related. Those having a right of abode are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have been born or adopted in this country, or acquired
994
our citizenship by naturalisation or registration here. It also includes the children and grandchildren of such citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies if they themselves are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This is rather more generous than the present situation under the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, in that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in these categories will in future be exempt from immigration control, notwithstanding that they do not hold United Kingdom passports.
Another improvement on the position under the 1968 Act is that the Bill grants an automatic right of abode to any citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are subject to immigration control once they have been in this country for five years free of conditions. This will help, for example, those United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa who have been admitted to this country under the special voucher scheme. The third category contained in Clause 2 are Commonwealth citizens whose father or mother were born in the United Kingdom. Under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 exemption was granted to any Commonwealth citizen whose father was born in this country. That is the present situation. As amended in another place, all the present Bill does is to extend this to mothers as well. I cannot believe that those who so often champion women's rights in this House will find anything to quarrel with in this change. These benefits, it should be noted (this was a point raised in the debate last December on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill) apply only to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or to citizens of other Commonwealth countries. They do not extend to aliens once the Bill has become law. There is therefore a priority accorded to Commonwealth citizens under the Bill which marks the strength and importance of our Commonwealth connections.
My Lords, I said earlier that the Bill should be as short as possible, and as explicit. It will be seen that it contains only 37 clauses and 6 Schedules: a notable feat of compression of a complex branch of the law in contrast to that other measure which is before your Lordships at the present time. The concept of the

995
right of abode, with its consequential exemption from immigration control, is not one that can be briefly or easily expressed in normal conversation. Thus the term "patrial" has been used to describe people who have a sufficiently close connection with this country by birth, ancestry or residence to achieve a right of abode. The word "patrial" has touched a sore spot in the liberal conscience. And yet, as I have explained, it contains no significant departure from the present situation, except that it relaxes to a certain extent the closeness of immigration control on Commonwealth citizens, for example, by exempting those whose mothers were born in the United Kingdom.
Connections by birth are well accepted in nationality legislation throughout the Commonwealth. As each dependent territory has gained independence over the last 25 years it has become normal practice to grant or offer its own citizenship to those who were born in the former dependency or whose parents were. In the United States, in France and in India, citizenship (and consequently exemption from immigration restrictions) is offered to anyone whose parents are nationals who were born in those countries. To describe a policy of this kind as racialist seems to me both extravagant and misconceived, and unlikely to lead to the improvement in community relations which we are all anxious to see.
Let me now move on to describe some of the detailed provisions of the Bill which have been the subject of comment. First, deportation. Part I of the Bill, among other things, defines the circumstances in which a person who is subject to immigration. control can be deported. This can be either on the initiative of the Secretary of State or on the recommendation of a court; in either case the final decision is taken by the Secretary of State personally. A court may recommend deportation where a person who is not patrial is found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment. Similarly, a power of deportation is also available where a person admitted for a limited time—for example, a visitor or a student—overstays the time limit or fails to observe other conditions attached to his stay. There is also a power to deport
996
a person who is not patrial if the Secretary of State deems his removal from this country to be conducive to the public good. The first two of these powers apply under the existing legislation both to Commonwealth citizens and to aliens, but the third ground at present applies to aliens only. It is under this clause that future Home Secretaries will have powers to take action when national security or political considerations are involved.
I must just mention one further point relating to deportation before going on to say a word or two about appeals. This concerns a new power to deport the members of a person's family with him, unless they are themselves exempt from control. The present situation is that when a breadwinner is deported, his dependants may stay behind in this country with no means of support and no prospect of a united family life. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it very clear in another place that this power will be used only after the most careful consideration has been given to the circumstances of each individual family. Whether the wife is living with or separated from her husband; the age of the children and the extent to which they may have established themselves in this country, will certainly be among the factors that will be taken into account. Moreover, we have come to the conclusion that it would be fair, in view of the strength of feeling on this matter, to provide a full right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for all members of a deportee's family whom it is proposed to include in the deportation order. The Government intend to table Amendments to the Bill accordingly in your Lordships' House in order to give effect to this decision.
The appeals system generally will continue very much as now. The main changes from the system envisaged in the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, but not yet fully implemented, are two. The first concerns appeals against decisions taken at the ports. The Bill provides a right of appeal for anyone who, for any reason, is refused leave to enter the country (unless he is refused on conducive grounds on the personal directions of the Secretary of State). But this right will be exercisable only from overseas, except where the passenger holds a work permit,

997
entry certificate, visa or other document of entitlement. The people in this latter category, which includes all those who will be coming here for work and all the dependants of those already established in this country, will have a right of appeal exercisable at the ports if they are refused entry by an immigration officer. The Bill, therefore, does not go as far as the Wilson Committee's recommendation, as embodied in the 1969 Immigration Appeals Act; namely, that there should be a general right of appeal at the ports for all passengers refused entry.
I mentioned earlier the need to take account of the sheer practicalities of immigration control in an era of mass travel. In 1966, 10 million passengers a year were arriving in this country, mainly as visitors, at the ports. By 1970 the figure had risen to 14 million. The total number of passengers subject to control has increased by 73 per cent. over the last four years. With the advent of jumbo-jets, and vastly improved facilities for visitors bringing their own cars, the numbers are likely to go on increasing. I happen to think that this is a very healthy trend, but the demands made on the Immigration Service are great. If every immigration decision were subject to an immediate appeal on the spot, the strain on the Immigration Service would be such that it simply could not carry out its primary task of operating the immigration control at the ports promptly and efficiently without causing considerable delay and congestion.
The second change contained in Part II of the Bill (which is the Part dealing with appeals), relates to those cases—few in number, but invariably controversial in character—where there are political or security considerations. There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about the best way to handle these cases. The Wilson Committee concluded that it would not be wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the appeal system, to remove from its scope cases in which the decision was taken on political grounds, and to leave these to the Home Secretary's discretion, subject to his responsibility to Parliament. That, in effect, is what the Bill does, not only in political cases but also where national security is involved.
The existing procedure for security and political cases, involving reference to a
998
special panel of the Appeal Tribunal, has been used only once. But on the occasion when it was used—in the Dutschke case—it attracted almost universal criticism. The main objection was that although the proceedings appeared to take the form of a trial (which it was not, since there was no justiciable issue), the appellant and his legal representatives could not be made aware of everything that was put before the Tribunal. I do not believe there can be many people who have had experience of this procedure, least of all those concerned to maintain the standards of British justice, who are at all happy about it. These cases, by their very nature, require political judgments to be made as to what does or does not constitute a threat to the security of the State or what amounts to undesirable political activity. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes, and believes rather strongly, that the best approach to problems of this sort is by way of a Minister who is open to challenge in Parliament. To enable him to obtain some advice before reaching a decision in these cases, however, the Home Secretary has said that he proposes to set up some sort of advisory system modelled on the lines of the advisory procedure for security cases in the Civil Service.
My Lords, this is a complex Bill and one containing many other matters which we shall want to discuss thoroughly in Committee. But there are two aspects, in particular, to which I think noble Lords would want me to refer before I sit down. The first concerns the police, and the second the powers contained in Clause 29 allowing payments to be made towards the travel costs of those who wish to return overseas. First, the police. They have a double function under this Bill. Their primary responsibility is to enforce the law. Part III of the Bill deals with criminal proceedings. Certain of the offences set out are new—for example, that of being knowingly concerned with illegal entry. We hope that prosecutions under these clauses will do much to discourage illegal immigration, and in particular those who organise this highly objectionable form of trafficking in human beings. The time limit for bringing proceedings is extended, but otherwise the police have no new powers in enforcing these provisions.

999
Nor is their second role a new one; that is, registering the holders of work permits on arrival in this country. For more than 50 years the police have had responsibility for registering the details of the place of work and residence of aliens, both on arrival in this country and when any later changes arc made. There are approximately 175,000 people from overseas who are currently registered with the police, and we are not aware of complaints of police officiousness or police harassment. On the contrary, all the evidence points towards the work being done efficiently and with good sense. Whenever possible, the police use civilian staff for this work, and it seems right that the same system which has worked perfectly satisfactorily for so many years for large numbers of people from overseas should be extended to those Commonwealth citizens who will come under the work permit Scheme in future. It is, incidentally, worth emphasising at this point, because there has been some misunderstanding, that it is only future entrants from the Commonwealth—mainly holders of work permits—and not Commonwealth citizens already established in this country, who will be affected by this provision.
Noble Lords who have followed the progress of this measure in another place will know that on Second Reading my right honourable friend gave an undertaking to look into any alternative agencies that might be suitable to take on the job of registering Commonwealth workers; and this he has done. But the Government have come to the conclusion that the police are the most appropriate agency for this task: and that it would be wrong to distinguish between one work permit holder and another in this respect. The weight of the additional burden on the police is indicated by the estimate that only 15 extra staff (mostly civilian employees) will be required.
Finally, my Lords, we come to the question of repatriation. I do not know that those who advocate a large-scale programme of planned repatriation would find very much support in this House. Let me make it quite clear, however, at the start of our consideration of this Bill, that the Government do not accept any proposals for large-scale repatriation as
1000
an act of policy which is intended to alter the balance of population in this country. The Home Secretary has said this without qualification in another place and I repeat it to-day. What we believe, however—and I have some personal experience of this—is that there arc circumstances when it is only plain common sense to be able to give travel assistance to an immigrant who himself wishes to depart. At present this cannot be done until he becomes virtually destitute. When he has been some time out of work, and has no prospect of obtaining work, thus becoming a long-term burden on public funds, then, but not before, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can assist.
But what about the man who comes here, who does not settle down, who is not happy even though he may have a job of sorts, whose wife is homesick and who wants to return home, but who cannot afford the fares? Is it not desirable to be able to give some financial help towards travel costs when people genuinely ask for it and genuinely need it, rather than sitting back and waiting for the extreme cases, late in the day, when it has become obvious that it will suit our pockets as taxpayers to do so? Of course the fear is that people may not genuinely ask for assistance; that they may be pressured, may be made to feel unwelcome in order to get them to leave. We should not ignore this argument, although I think it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on it. Thus, for this reason, as well as for others, we believe that the right way to proceed is on a social work basis.
We do not have any hard and fast approach to this matter. It is a new question and one that needs to be explored with an open mind. What we envisage, therefore, is grant aiding an existing voluntary welfare body with considerable experience of social case work among migrant families both in this country and overseas. We have initiated discussions with International Social Services, proposing that financial contributions would be made available under the power contained in Clause 29 where I.S.S. was satisfied, first of all, that the applicants genuinely wanted to leave and needed help to do so; and, secondly, would be better off in their own interests if helped to leave than if they remained in this country.

1001
I have mentioned this subject last to show our general attitude towards immigration and race relations. There are no short cuts here, no ready-made solutions. In present-day conditions immigration policies must be secondary to—indeed they must serve—policies designed to improve relations between the various communities in this country. The word "relations" reminds us that there are different interests and that conflict and tension can arise between them. It is the job of this Government, like their predecessors, to try to ease those tensions to indentify and eradicate their causes, and to ask Parliament to approve measures designed to that end. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.(Lord Windlesham)

E.E.C.: TERMS FOR BRITISH PARTICIPATION
4.6 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should like now to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in another place. It is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the meeting with the European Community which I attended in Luxembourg on June 21 and 22. As the House will have seen, this meeting achieved a number of agreements of the very greatest importance. The House will, I hope bear with me if the length of my Statement is in relation to their importance.
"The meeting first reached agreement on arrangements for British participation in the main institutions of the Community. Briefly, these arrangements would give this country a place in the institutions equal to that of France, Germany and Italy.
"Certain further details, including our participation in the European Court of Justice, remain to be decided, but I think it is already clear that there will be no difficulty in making arrangements which are perfectly satisfactory to us.
1002
"We also reached satisfactory agreement on the problems connected with our entry into the European Coal and Steel Community. In the first place the Community delegation confirmed that they had no intention of calling in question the size or the legal position of the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board. We ourselves had never regarded this as a matter for the negotiations. But I was glad to have the Community's statement on the record.
"For our part we have accepted the Treaty of Paris and its implementing legislation and have undertaken to remove incompatibilities between our legislation and practices on the one hand and the Treaty of Paris on the other either before or at any rate very soon after our accession. As regards transitional measures it has been agreed that tariffs for steel products covered by the Treaty of Paris would move at the same rate as has been agreed for industrial products generally. We have also secured a transitional period of two years during which we might, if we wished, maintain control over the export within the enlarged Community of certain high grades of scrap.
"In return for our access to the reserve funds of the Coal and Steel Community, which amount to about£90 million, we have undertaken to contribute roughly £24 million, to the reserve funds of the Coal and Steel Community. This is rather less than would be called for on a strict application of the ratio of the value of our coal and steel production to theirs. The£24 million would be paid in three equal annual instalments starting from the date of accession. The money would be banked in the United Kingdom and would be used primarily, if not wholly, in this country.
"I turn now to arrangements to cover the period which would have to elapse between the signature of an accession treaty providing for our membership of the Communities and the entry into force of the treaty after the completion of processes of ratification here and in the member countries of the Community.

1003
"We have agreed with the Community that in this period joint procedures would be established to ensure that decisions taken by the institutions of the Community took due account of the interests of candidates as prospective members and that consultations would take place before such decisions were taken. It was perfectly reasonable that the Community on their side should ask for the same procedures to apply to decisions to be taken by the candidate states which might affect their obligations as prospective members of the Community.
"We also raised with the Community the problems of our hill farming areas. They themselves have similar problems and have adopted a variety of methods to deal with them. So they were sympathetic to the needs of farmers in our hill areas, and recognised the need for appropriate action in these areas where special conditions obtain. I am therefore satisfied that in the event of entry we should be able to give the continuing assistance needed to maintain the incomes of farmers in the hill areas.
"I now turn to New Zealand. The agreement which we reached with the Community in order to provide adequate arrangements for the very special position of New Zealand is a complex one, and I will ask the House to bear with me if I set it out in some detail.
"First, it was agreed that there would be special arrangements for New Zealand dairy products. Quantitative guarantees have been agreed for the first five years, during which New Zealand would be guaranteed a market for agreed quantities. Butter is of course the product of particular importance to New Zealand. The guaranteed quantity for butter would be reduced during the transitional period so that in the fifth year New Zealand would be guaranteed 80 per cent. of present quantities. For cheese, for which New Zealand can in any case expect to continue sales to this country at a reasonable level after our entry, the quantities guaranteed would be reduced to 20 per cent. in the fifth year. The result is that in terms of milk equivalent New Zealand could
1004
be assured of selling 71 per cent. of the present quantity even in 1977. The price level would also be guaranteed to New Zealand at the average of that enjoyed here during the years 1969–72. We estimate that this will result in prices to New Zealand substantially higher than the average of recent years.
"During this first five-year period, it would be open to the Council of the Community, on which we would of course be fully represented in accordance with the agreement on institutions of which I have just told the House, to make adjustments as between guaranteed quantities of butter and of cheese, provided that the tonnage expressed as milk equivalent corresponded to the total quantities approved for the two products for the year in question.
"During the third year after our accession, the institutions of the enlarged Community would review the butter situation in the light of the supply and demand position and trends in the major producing and consuming countries of the world, particularly the Community and in New Zealand.
"Among the considerations of which account would be taken during this review would be the progress made towards an effective world agreement on milk products and the question of New Zealand's progress towards diversification of its economy and its exports. The Community has undertaken to make every effort to promote the conclusion of an international agreement on dairy products. We have moreover agreed that the enlarged Community would undertake to pursue a trade policy which would not frustrate New Zealand's efforts to diversify. Increased earnings by New Zealand in other markets might result. I would interject that this particular element of the agreement is of the greatest importance to New Zealand and has been appreciated by New Zealand Ministers as such.
"In the light of this review, the Council of the enlarged Community would decide on suitable measures for ensuring the continuation of the derogation system for New Zealand beyond the end of 1977. This also has been particularly welcomed by New Zealand.

1005
"All this means that New Zealand even in 1977, six years hence, would be guaranteed sales of 136.000 tons of butter and at least 15,000 tons of cheese. These are minimum guarantees and she might well sell more. Since we estimate that the price which New Zealand would receive would be substantially above the level of recent years, this would give her the prospect over the five years of total export earnings at or above the level of those which she has enjoyed in our market in recent years.
"Taken together this represents a very satisfactory deal for New Zealand and a very considerable concession by the European Community, the implications of which will not be lost on honourable Members. In the circumstances it is gratifying, but not surprising, that the New Zealand Prime Minister has commented:
'One of the main requirements from our point of view was that there should be comprehensive and specific criteria to govern the review of the special arrangement when the time came for it to be renewed. The review formula represents a major concession to New Zealand and a result which is highly satisfactory.
I am confident that we can safeguard New Zealand's interests within the framework of the broad agreement reached between Britain and the Six. Moreover we shall he on a unique footing in our future dealings with the enlarged Community. No other country will enjoy the same advantages.'
"I now turn to arrangements for our participation in the Community's budgetary system.
"Here the arrangements which we have agreed would provide for a maximum annual contribution to be paid by the United Kingdom in the first five years amounting to 8-64 per cent. of the Community's budget in 1973 rising to 18.92 per cent. of the Community's budget in 1977. Before the end of 1977 the Commission would calculate the contribution which the United Kingdom would have made in 1977 had we then applied in full the Community's budgetary system. On the basis of this calculation, a limitation would be applied to our contribution for a further two years, namely, 1978 and 1979, to ensure gradual progression to our full final contribution.
"The House will want to know how the resulting contributions would com-
1006
pare with the estimates which I gave to honourable Members on December 16 when we made our initial proposals. The estimates of the budget of an enlarged Community have been revised downwards substantially since last year. At that time, it was thought that the budget of an enlarged Community might grow to a figure of 4,500 million dollars in 1977. However, the butter mountain of which we heard so much at that time has melted, and agricultural prices in the Community have risen very little over the past four years, while world prices have gone on rising. The price gap, and consequently the cost of agricultural support in the Community, have accordingly fallen. The budget is now expected to grow from 3,300 million dollars in 1973 to 3,800 million dollars in 1977.
"In these circumstances, our net contribution, for it is important to remember that we shall be receiving payments from the Community's budget, would be around£100 million in 1973, rising perhaps to about £200 million in 1977. These compare with £30 million for the first year under the arrangements I explained to the House on December 16 for 1973 and £140 million to £180 million for 1977.
"These sums are important ones. But the House will recognise that the Community has made arrangements which would be very satisfactory to this country on a number of other issues during the meeting which I have just attended, particularly on New Zealand. And it is fair and right that this country should, if it joins the Community, play its proper part in all aspects of Community policies and developments.
"Finally, the Conference discussed fisheries, and I want to make quite clear what the position is. As the House knows, we have put forward a proposition based on two essentials. First a recognition by the Community of the need for change in the common fisheries policy and secondly a clear indication of what would be necessary as respects access to fishing grounds in particular. We have suggested exclusive fishing up to six miles from existing baselines for vessels genuinely fishing from home ports. This still remains our position.

1007
"The Six have now recognised that, in an enlarged Community, the access provisions of the common fisheries policy would have to be reconsidered and this will be the point of departure for the further discussions which will be necessary. It has been agreed that these discussions should be held with the Community at Ministerial level at a meeting in the week beginning July 12, and that, at our request, the other applicant countries should also be invited in view of the fact that, as the House is well aware, fisheries is also a matter of great importance to them. I know that the House places great emphasis on a firm agreement on limits before reaching a decision, and that is why I have asked for this early meeting. I will then report further to the House.
"I would like to pay a particular tribute to the understanding and co-operation with which the Community delegation dealt with these problems and to add a special word of appreciation to the role which the Commission played during what were arduous, but what I hope the House will agree, successful negotiations.
"There is still plenty of work to be done. And we have to reach agreement with the Community on transitional arrangements for our movement to Community policies regarding capital movements, on the European Investment Bank and on the safeguarding of employment in Northern Ireland, on the position of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and of course on fisheries.
"But the agreements reached in Luxembourg mean that we have now broken the back of the negotiations. We have been able to progress so far because the Community have demonstrated their political will to see the Community enlarged and to have Britain in as a full member with them."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.20 p.m.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Marquess for
1008
repeating that long Statement. It is the longest Statement I can remember in this House, but that is probably not surprising because, whatever may be one's views, it is certainly the most important Statement in my memory: indeed, I would go so far as to say it is a historic Statement. It will not be universally welcomed; I am sure that there will be many noble Lords on this side of the House to whom it will be most unwelcome. Before I ask the noble Marquess one or two questions, may I be allowed to say that my own position on this issue has been made very clear over the years in speeches I made as a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it has not changed since I moved from Government to Opposition. As a former negotiator, I should be less than honest if I did not say that I have been impressed throughout by the determination and skill of the Government negotiating team, and I share their relief at the conclusion of this most crucial phase in these historic negotiations. It is perhaps disappointing that the cost of contribution to the Budget is higher than we have expected; but on the other hand, there has been a clear concession, as the Prime Minister of New Zealand publicly said, to the position of New Zealand. and one is no longer able to say, as I did in the past, that it is no good going into negotiations and making all the concessions without exacting some from the other side.
Having said as much, I should like to put a few questions to the noble Marquess. some procedural and some designed to elicit information which I hope may be useful in our later discussions. I shall be grateful to know when we may expect the White Paper to emerge so that we may have time to study it before our further discussions; and I wonder whether I may ask the noble Marquess to assure us that when it emerges it will be written in plain English, so that everybody may understand exactly what we are being asked to agree to. On the question of the package so far as it has emerged, why is it that the price levels in the New Zealand agreement have been fixed at the 1969-72 levels? Presumably there is a reason for this. I am not clear why some allowance was not made for inflation and why that particular period was chosen.
On the question of fisheries there seems to be a great deal still left in the air.
LORD BOOTHBY: Hear, hear!
LORD CHALFONT: The Statement admits as much. But may we ask when the fisheries policy will become clear; and may we have an assurance that it will be made absolutely clear before the House is asked to take a decision on the full package? My last substantive question concerns EFTA. Can the noble Lord say whether it is true, as reported in some newspapers to-day, that EFTA has been offered the benefits of an industrial free trade arrangement with the Common Market; that is to say, in effect the Common Market will become a member of EFTA. Is this true? Can he throw any light on these reports? Finally, on a procedural matter, I understand that there has been agreement through the usual channels for an extensive debate on this subject. Can the noble Marquess confirm that and can he give us any indication when it may take place?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I need hardly say that we on these Benches heartily welcome the agreement which has now been reached in Luxembourg, and once again extend to Mr. Rippon and his team all our congratulations. As the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said, it is indeed a historic occasion. As we see it, there can be no denying that Mr. Rippon (with the exception of the fishing and one or two other smaller points which look as if they are going to be settled satisfactorily quite soon) has got everything he could possibly have been expected to get and, so far as New Zealand is concerned, considerably more than most people expected. The concessions which his tenacity has obtained from the Six are, we must all admit, really remarkable. And in any case, entry on these broad terms will have far fewer economic disadvantages, notably as regards our balance of payments, than those forecast in the last White Paper on the subject, to say nothing of the cataclysmic results then forecast by the anti-Common Marketeers. The conclusion must therefore be that nobody can oppose our entry on the terms now proposed save those who on principle object to our joining E.E.C. in any circumstances whatever. Such people, as our own Party Leader, Mr. Thorpe, has said,
1010
even if mistaken are no doubt numerous, sincere and patriotic; but they can hardly include those who supported the great efforts of Mr. Wilson and Lord George-Brown (to whom, if he were in his place, I should like to pay a sincere tribute, as also to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont) to enter the Common Market on terms which included, in principle, acceptance of the Common Agricultural Policy.
I have only one specific question. Speaking of the review of the butter situation as regards New Zealand that will be held in the third year after our accession to the E.E.C., Mr. Rippon said that the Council of the enlarged Community would
"decide on suitable measures for ensuring the continuation of the derogation system for New Zealand beyond the end of 1977".
This is the question I should like to put: how would the Council so decide? If by unanimity, would this mean that the existing derogation system would continue to be applied in the absence of a decision to alter it? Or is that not the case?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My
Lords, may I thank both noble Lords who have spoken and, if I may, echo the very handsome tributes they have paid to Mr. Rippon and his team. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has asked me several questions, some of which I can answer, some of which I cannot be quite specific about. The first question he asked was when the White Paper might be expected. I am afraid that I cannot personally give him a date for this; but obviously it will have to be within a very few weeks, to give the House time to read and digest it before we come to our debate. I think I am right in saying that this will be arranged through the usual channels. I should not like to go further than that at the present time. I shall also try to ensure that the White Paper is written in language that both he and I and the rest of the House can understand.
He also asked me a question as to why the dates 1969–1972 have been chosen as the standard for the average price of New Zealand dairy products. My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I can give him the answer to that as I was not at Luxembourg during that time. All I can say is that Mr. Marshall, who was in Luxembourg, must, I think, have been

1011
perfectly satisfied that this was a reasonable period which would give them a reasonable price. As to the question of fisheries, I can assure the noble Lord that we hope to have absolute clarification on the matter before there is any question of a decision. He also asked a question about EFTA. I may say that I have not seen this report, and therefore I should not like to comment on it; but I will, of course, look into the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked a question about what would happen in the third year if the Commission did not come to an agreement about the derogation—
LORD GLADWYN: No, my Lords; I asked how would the Commission make its decision.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTFIIAN: Well, my Lords, the Commission will make the decision—and at that stage we hope we shall be a party to it—in the light of the facts (as I said in my Statement) of the situation of the supply, demand and pricing at that time.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess three short questions? The first is this. Is he aware that it is necessary (in view of the euphoria expressed in the language of my noble friend Lord Chalfont who apparently wholeheatedly supports the agreement that has been reached at Luxembourg) to say that my noble friend is not speaking for every noble Lord on this side of the House; and certainly not for the Labour Party or for a majority of people in this country? That is my first question, and I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to your Lordships' House.
My second question is this. Is not the agreement, particularly about New Zealand, the alleged concessions, and also the concessions to the French for which they have been asking for quite a long period of time, namely, that the initial contribution in the first half of the transitional period should be increased, as indeed Mr. Rippon has agreed to—a complete surrender to the French; and, moreover—
LORD GLADWYN: No.
LORD SHINWELL: I am asking the question, and I want the answer from the noble Marquess, and not from the ancient advocate of going into the Common Market on my right. The interruption was forced on me. I know that I am not supposed to indulge in it and that I should merely ask a question. I put the question again. Is not the concession to New Zealand, a limited concession, attributable almost entirely to the concession made to the French, for which they have been asking for a long period of time; and does not the reduction—this is my third question—in food imports from New Zealand over a period of time mean that it will pave the way for imports of precisely the same kind of dairy products from France, and from some of the other countries of the Six, which means that a rise in food prices, particularly dairy products, is inevitable?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords, I do not think I can agree that there has been a surrender to the French—
LORD SHINWELL: I should be surprised if you did.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN:—in the matter of the initial contribution. Of course, we should have preferred a lower contribution; there is no doubt about that. On the other hand, the agreement reached so far is that we shall be paying something in the region of about half what the Community originally suggested that we might pay. So I really do not think that the noble Lord can honestly say that we have surrendered to the French in this matter. We have been very pleased that the Community, the Six, have been able to help us and to help the Government of New Zealand. I should like to re-emphasise that the Government of New Zealand, in the person of their Prime Minister, have expressed themselves as very satisfied in this matter. I feel that the noble Lord's first "statement", as I think I might call it, is not one for me to comment on.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess one simple question on a subject which, I suspect, he thinks that I am going to ask about; that is, whether the fishery negotiations will be completed in time for inclusion in the White Paper? The timing of this business is rather important, and it was

1013
not quite clear from Mr. Rippon's Statement (I think that Mr. Rippon is to be warmly congratulated on his achievement) whether the fishery proposals will come before or after the issue of the White Paper.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think this rather a difficult question, and I cannot be absolutely certain of the answer. My feeling is that it may be, in view of the time factor, that the White Paper will have to be published before the final results of the fishery proposals. As Mr. Rippon himself has said, this will not mean that he will not, when he has the result, come to Parliament and report.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with regard to New Zealand and the reply given by the noble Marquess—particularly in respect of the question from the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—is it to be understood that there is no provision for escalation at all in the agreement, as is provided for in so many other international agreements, where there is an escalation clause related to the increase of population?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords; my understanding is that no escalation matters have been considered in this way.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether the White Paper, when published, will tell us not only what are the benefits and costs of going into the Market, but also what would be the position of this country if we stay out?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that I can foresee, or prophesy, what the White Paper will include; but I will certainly take note of what the noble Lord has said.

IMMIGRATION BILL
4.38 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am wondering whether this would be a suitable time for the House to continue its discussion on the Immigration Bill, particularly as we have some 31 speakers on our list, and I am only the second. I think the House will be grateful that we have the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who I understand is the Minister in the Home Office directly responsible for immigrant affairs, present to guide us during our deliberations on a Bill which he himself is prepared to admit is extremely complex. I should also like to express my appreciation at the presence of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. One is very conscious of the many burdens that flow from that Office and we know that he is much involved in another contentious Bill, the Industrial Relations Bill. But we who recognise the very great humanity of the noble and learned Lord, and his strong feelings about individual rights and human dignity, are gratified that he is present. Particularly in Committee will his assistance prove invaluable during the effort which will be made, I believe from both sides of your Lordships' House, to improve the Bill.
I do not conceal from the House my bitter hostility to this Bill. It is not entirely because of what is in the Bill that I feel that way. I think it is perhaps the concept and motivation of the Bill—this is the last time that I shall say this—and because of the dark shadow of the right honourable gentleman in another place who undoubtedly influenced the views of the Party opposite. That is the last I want to say on that matter. I hope that all our discussions on this Bill will be conducted on a non-Party basis.
I believe that there is deep disquiet in all sections of the House over the whole question of immigration and over the manner in which the new citizens of this country are assimilated. I frankly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that if we take the country to-day, with some 600 people per acre and the great strains upon the whole field of our social effort, of education and of

1015
housing, it is riot possible to have an open door for immigrants. We on this side of the House were bitterly opposed to the 1962 Act—I certainly was—but, to be frank, to-day I believe that control is necessary. I know that some of my noble friends still feel strongly on this matter, and although we accept that there must be immigration control, we believe that it should be control without any discrimination on grounds of colour, race and creed. The case I made on the 1968 Act is still true to-day: that we must do everything we can to ensure the assimilation of Commonwealth immigrants into our community. We have to look at this Bill in this light. And I now come to the reason for my hostility to it.
I believe that many provisions of the Bill will not in any way assist in the assimilation of the coloured community. There are 31 speakers and I do not intend to speak for long, but I want to stress this point. The Home Secretary said that the purpose of this Bill was to assure the British public that there would be no large-scale immigration and to assure new citizens that they could live in peace and security among us. On the first point, the Government do not need any new powers to control the inflow of immigrants. Rightly or wrongly, we can hold strong feelings on this matter, but ever since 1962 Home Secretaries and Governments have gradually decreased the inflow, and they have been able to do it by administrative arrangements under the 1962 Act. Is it not significant that only the other day the Home Secretary made an important announcement about the reduction of the inflow of Commonwealth immigrants in order to take a larger number of Asians from East Africa, and that he was able to do it under existing administrative arrangements? The Bill gives the Home Secretary no new powers, none whatsoever. It may be that in view of their election pledge, the Government feel that they need to give a surety to the public that there is to be some new control, but I think it was frankly acknowledged in another place that no new power had been given to, or had been asked for by, the Home Secretary. Therefore, if the main purpose of the Bill is to satisfy the British public, clearly the Bill is not necessary.
1016
Does the Bill in any way give a sense of security to the coloured citizens of this country? All I can say is that the Commonwealth countries have expressed bitter hostility towards it. The coloured immigrants, through there various associations, have expressed their fear and concern. Clearly, the message of the Home Secretary has not got across. What, to me, is more important is that the dedicated men and women who for years and years have worked for better community relations, working through all the hours of the day and under great difficulties, and in most cases without any salaries or rewards, are all united in believing that this Bill, instead of creating a sense of security and stability among coloured immigrants in this country. does the opposite and creates a sense of instability. Is this to be wondered at, when we look at the provisions of the Bill?
Under the 1962 Act, there was an employment voucher system, which was a form of immigration control. A coloured immigrant was given an employment voucher, which allowed him to stay in this country as of right. We are now moving to a new system whereby an immigrant will receive a work permit which, in the first instance, will be valid for only one year. At the end of that year, provided that his employer is prepared to write a letter and say he will continue employment, and provided that the imigrant satisfies one or two other requirements that have to be taken into account, the permit will be extended to two years. Then he will have to make another application for a work permit, until he has reached five years, when perhaps he will reasonably be able to feel that he will remain in this country.
My Lords, consider the position of an immigrant from the West Indies. First of all, he has to pay for his passage to this country, and when he arrives he has to find a house. Certainly within one year he is not going to get a local authority house, and he will not be able to go to a building society, or to a bank, and get a loan. He will have very little security to offer to anyone in order to provide himself and his family with a house. Imagine the sense of utter insecurity of mind of such a coloured immigrant during his first year in this country and during the first three or four years that the Government have set aside.

1017
Under existing arrangements, if an immigrant has been in this country for five years he can, by right, become a citizen. But that right is now being removed from him. He will become a citizen at the discretion of the Home Secretary, after he has been here for a full five years. How can we say that that can possibly help the assimilation about which we have all spoken?
Then is the question of registration with the police. I do not believe that this is a reflection on the British police force. Most of our friends who come from other Commonwealth countries regard policemen in a very different light from the people of this country. May I tell your Lordships a story? I remember coming across on a ferry boat from Calais to Dover and meeting a husband and wife., who were obviously Commonwealth people. I will not mention their nationality, because that would be unfair. They were looking at our money and saying that they could not understand the value of a half-crown, a two-shilling piece and a shilling, and I sought to explain it to them. They said: "What is it like in London? What do we do? It is a big place, and we may get lost". I said to them: "If you get lost, go to a policeman and ask him how to get where you want to go". I met them some two weeks later, and they said: "You know, we were lost. We went to a policeman as you suggested, and, do you know'?, he walked down the road with us to help us in our direction." This is an attitude that they do not see in most of these countries where police forces are basically para-military. We here are very conscious of how our police forces have sought to get over some of the suspicions of Commonwealth immigrants. Things have been done. But that fear exists.
The Police Federation are deeply concerned about the proposals in the Bill. I hope that the Government will seriously consider whether there are other agencies through which immigrants can register. I recognise that the police may have to enforce some of the provisions of this Bill, but I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of our organisation to find some way in which immigrants can register without going to the police station. I attach special importance to this, because in many cases the first week or fortnight
1018
is the most important to immigrants when they come to this country. if they were to go to the Department of Employment, or to the Department that deals with social security, they could receive assistance which they would be willing to accept. This would make a great deal of difference to their time in this country. Then I find the provisions in the Bill dealing with deportation far too wide; and too much discretion is given to the Home Secretary. I must say that I bitterly dislike the idea that if a man has committed an offence his wife and children should be subject to deportation, perhaps for the children to be sent back to what is to them an alien land and a new alien form of education. I should have thought that we in this country were big enough and rich enough—the numbers involved will only be small—that if a man had to be deported we could find ways and means of supporting his family. I hope that the House, when the Bill is in Committee, will look at this point with special care.
There are many other points in the Bill that we shall need to consider with great care, and, I hope, sympathy. My entire approach on this matter is that I believe that there is, and should be, a clear distinction between our treatment of Commonwealth immigrants and our treatment of aliens. I can understand those who argue that if a country has obtained its independence and become a republic it is not much different from any other foreign country. But I am one who believes passionately that the Commonwealth has a great deal to offer to the world as a whole. But the Commonwealth is a tender plant, and we should do all we possibly can to strengthen that plant. I believe that the way in which we treat Commonwealth citizens is an important factor in whether the Commonwealth will survive. The extent to which friends overseas within the Commonwealth still look to this country for something that they find it hard to define is extraordinary. I think that the way in which we have been willing, despite the difficulties, to assimilate Commonwealth citizens into this country has had much to do with this. So I hope that the House will feel, when we look at this Bill, that we should seek to ensure that the Commonwealth citizen, when he comes to this country, is given the best possible

1019
treatment. Above all else, we should never in any way depart from our previous policy—a policy of both Parties—that every step we take should be to assimilate the new community within ourselves, and certainly never adopt measures that put them into a different class.
4.56 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has taken us through the provisions of this Bill with the courtesy and care that we should expect from him. If I may say so without appearing to be condescending, he has shown a better grasp of the Bill than the Government spokesman in another place. But that, alas! does not make it a good Bill. I think there is a case for taking a careful look at citizenship and the British Nationality Act 1948. Much has happened since 1948. But the Bill does not approach the subject in that way; it is a very different kind of Bill. I was discussing the Bill the other day with my noble friend Lord Foot, and he said that the legislative effect of it could be summed up in the words: "For 'Commonwealth citizen ' read ' coloured alien '". I think that is a very fair point.
I am aware that one of the arguments put forward for the Bill is the need to bring the law relating to Commonwealth citizens into line with the aliens legislation. If the intention were to revise and liberalise our aliens legislation, I would say that there is much to be said for it. But that is not really what is happening in this Bill. Talking of the aliens legislation, it is well to record the atmosphere in which earlier Acts have been passed, in 1914 and 1919. I have been reading the interesting debates on the Second Reading of the Aliens Restriction Bill 1919. and I notice that the Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party in the House of Commons was criticised for being "too liberal-minded". But it was not easy to be too liberal-minded in 1914 and 1919, and even in 1905 when there was a strong campaign against Jews. In other words, our aliens legislation was prepared in an unfavourable atmosphere and at an unfavourable time. I agree with the observation of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, as Mr. Quintin Hogg, speaking in the House of
1020
Commons on the Immigration Appeals Bill on January 27, 1969, and referring to the Act of 1914, said at column 504:
"… we established one of the least liberal and one of the most arbitrary systems of immigration law in the world—in the civilised world, at any rate."
I hope that the day does not come when the same remarks are applied to this Bill. In any case, I hope that we shall not hear much of the argument that it is desirable to bring our law relating to those who come from the Commonwealth into line with the existing aliens legislation.
Much may depend on the way in which the rules and regulations are operated. It may depend on who happens to be the Home Secretary at the time, or on the Minister responsible. However we may respect the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as indeed we do, I do not think anybody would forecast that he will remain in his present position for ever. We must look to the future, and I think the crux of the matter is that this Bill is paving the way for a more illiberal Bill in the future, perhaps operated by a more illiberal régime. These fears were not lessened by the welcome given to the Bill on Third Reading by Mr. Powell. In col. 742 he said:
"… we now have the means, whenever we decide, to change this policy by administrative action."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Commons, 17/6/71.]
Referring to the changes created by the Bill, in col. 738 he said:
"… the importance of some of the changes is that they may lead the way and open the door to further changes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 17/6/71.]
I do not regard that as a good reason for supporting the Bill. As to administrative action, one of the criticisms that is justified is the extent to which power is handed over to the Executive.
Turning now to the immediate effects of the Bill, one really cannot ignore the views of the great majority of those who are engaged in community relations work, who are almost unanimous in their criticism, not only because of the implications of this new distinction between those who are patrials and those who are not, but also because of some of the new procedures that are laid down and in particular this procedure for registration with the police, to which reference has just

1021
been made. I think the Police Federation have put forward a very impressive case and it will be found that the views of community relations workers and the police coincide here. Some of their conclusions as to remedies are not quite the same but they coincide in recognising the danger of this proposal, and I do not believe that this is a case where administrative convenience or the alleged administrative inconvenience of any alternative is a sufficient answer to the criticisms that have been put forward.
If time had permitted, I would have wished to speak about my experience in Yorkshire, but I will simply say that since about 1963 we have been aware of this problem of relationships with the police. We have at the present time a subcommittee which is concerned solely with the problem of how to create good relationships between the newcomers and the police. We are aware of the different attitude to the police which exists in a number of countries—very different from our own. There are historical reasons for that. I believe that the Home Office are well aware of this fact. I have seen the leaflet which they have prepared and which they recommend that the police should use, which is to be distributed in a number of different languages. My committee in Yorkshire, whose chairman I have the honour to be, is drafting its own leaflet, which will be distributed. But that is not enough. We shall follow up the distribution with a number of discussion groups, trying to get across the right image of the police. However, if anyone imagines that this new procedure of newcomers registering with the police can be turned into some kind of public relations operation for improving the image of the police, he has no conception of the nature of the problem.
May I refer the House to what Mr. Sharples said on the Third Reading on June 17:
" There is a positive advantage in the newcomer to this country having early contact with the police …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col 731.]
Now that may have been well-intentioned, but it is utterly unrealistic. The very fact that the Government have proposed this form of registration and insisted upon it indicates, in my view, that they do not appreciate the delicacy of the problem. There are many other clauses to which I should like to refer
1022
but, as has been pointed out, there are many other speakers.
Another very grave cause for concern is that if the Bill is put on the Statute Book it might create a kind of licensed migrant labour. I have read this statement by Mr. Sharples on April 22 (col. 393) and of course Rule 19, and it would appear to create a new situation in which an immigrant would be tied to a particular employer. I should like to show how great the practical difficulties are in my county, but time will not permit. But how will this work? Does it mean that if an employee offends his employer he will be liable to be shipped back to his country of origin? Quite apart from the practical difficulties, is that not utterly undesirable? In criticising this Bill I feel somewhat inhibited, because I know it has caused great feelings of unease and I do not want to make the situation worse, but, on the other hand, I think that we are bound to express our criticisms and I cannot believe that the Conservative Manifesto really promised the people a Bill which would add to the tension and in some cases create an atmosphere of despair. It has been suggested that the Bill is worth while because it will simplify the law; but it will do no such thing. It will not simplify the law, either for the immigrants or for the immigration officers.
In the light of these serious and fundamental objections we have to consider what attitude to adopt to the Second Reading. Personally, I should not like to feel that by any act of commission or omission I had facilitated the passing of this Bill; and my Liberal colleagues and I propose to vote against the Second Reading. Noble Lords will recall that on the Second Reading of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill which was debated on February 29, 1968, 85 noble Lords voted against the Second Reading and, to his credit, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was one of them. I believe we have an equally strong case against this Bill. If the Bill does get a Second Reading to-night then I hope that noble Lords, if given an opportunity, will vote in favour of Lord O'Hagan's Motion. I see nothing inconsistent in voting against the Bill and for his Motion. If, in spite of all, the Bill gets to the Committee stage, then I would say in conclusion that I hope that before it leaves your

1023
Lordships' House some of the provisions about which many feel greatly disturbed will have been removed or drastically amended.
5.8 p.m.
LORD O'HAGANhad given Notice of a Motion, That this House, while recognising that all countries have the right to impose immigration controls, regrets that the Immigration Bill now before Parliament adversely affects the existing rights of Commonwealth citizens legally resident in this country; is likely to harm community relations without materially affecting the rate of immigration; and ignores that concern for the mutual interests of member countries on which the Commonwealth relationship is based. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to begin by explaining the reasons for my Motion.
Many, if not most, noble Lords do not like to vote against the Second Reading of a Government Bill which has passed through the other place, especially when it is a major Bill and one for which the Government have a mandate. I have considered a number of possible procedures by which I might ask those of your Lordships who object to some major aspects of this Bill to register a vote without rejecting the Bill. I spent many, many hours recently, trying to please everybody—hours which I should have spent in preparing my speech—and the procedure that I finally adopted has the approval of the Deputy Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition. Thus, after the Second Reading has been disposed of—and if there is a vote on that I shall certainly abstain—I shall formally move my Motion (and there will be the opportunity for a vote on it) which deprecates certain aspects of the Bill, and which, I am advised, would not contradict any decision taken on the Second Reading. To my mind, the voting is important, so I hope that your Lordships will stay to the end. But the voting is not as important as the speaking.
My second motive for putting down the Motion was that a sterile Party squabble on a Bill of this sort would be worse than futile. With so much experience and knowledge on these matters in all quarters of the House, I hope that Party considerations can to some extent
1024
be temporarily submerged, so that the deep and important issues behind this Bill can be examined thoroughly. In one sense my job this afternoon is already over; I am only a prologue or a harbinger.
But I should like to sketch in my Motion in a little more detail. The first part speaks for itself:
"… all countries have the right to impose immigration controls."
Of course they do. We can no longer hold the door open. But let me underline one point now: this Bill of itself will make no difference to numbers. The taps that control the flow are there already and can easily be turned this way or that at any time. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was doing that just the other week when he announced special arrangements for the entry of Kenyan Asians. He did not have to wait for this Bill. By and large, the number coming here will continue to be settled by administrative decision. The new taps will be somewhat different. Some of the people now designated as patrials will, for the first time in recent years, have the absolute right to come here. On the other hand, the right of entry of dependants of non-patrial Commonwealth immigrants is abolished. A future Home Secretary could order the division of families and so reduce the numbers coming in. I say "a future" because the present Home Secretary has made it plain that he does not intend to use this power to alter numbers.
The next part of my Motion is crucial. I regret that the existing rights of Commonwealth citizens legally resident are adversely affected. Not only are those who come here in the future downgraded —I have already mentioned one aspect; the right of entry of dependants—but those already here, whom the Government are so keen to reassure, are affected, too. One example is that of a perfectly law-abiding student of sixteen or seventeen years of age who under this Bill can be deported if an adult member of his family is deported. He may be on a grant; he may be living away from home. Talk about visiting the sins of the fathers! I am grateful for the appeal procedure conceded by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham.

1025
The Home Secretary believes that community relations is the fundamental issue here, and I agree. Unfortunately, the techniques the Government have chosen to help community relations are rather bizarre. This Bill, which is supposed to reassure immigrants and the host community, is called the Immigration Bill. The title itself gives the impression that the number of black faces will be drastically reduced overnight simply by the passage of the Bill, whereas the numbers coming or leaving are unlikely to alter significantly unless repatriation is vigorously encouraged. People hoping for an overnight reduction will be disappointed. If the Government sell the Bill as the final solution to immigration control—and that is what they are doing—they are going to have many dissatisfied customers. The Government appear to believe that you make Commonwealth immigrants feel at home by saying to them: "You are all aliens now except as a special favour, and as a real advantage in your day-to-day life you can vote every five years and become an M.P.". For example, future Commonwealth immigrants, in many cases the friends, relations or former neighbours of immigrants already here, will have to register with the police. They will be on the same footing as aliens. I do not want to go into Committee points here—indeed, it is hardly safe to say anything at all about the police in this context without the Government interpreting it as an attack on the splendid police force that we have. Let me make one small point on police registration. In my view, the Government have so far dodged the real issue. They have not justified their stand. I do not believe that they have seriously and thoroughly investigated the alternatives to registration with the police.
I have not dealt with other issues, like patriality. at this stage. All I should like to say about patriality is that it is a cockeyed concept, knocked up by someone who does too many crosswords. I should like to quote from a letter that I received to-day from the High Commissioner for New Zealand. He said to me:
"Unfortunately the privilege of patriality will not be shared by the entire community, and the Maori population in particular has received this innovation with misgivings."
Other detailed provisions of the Bill I will leave to those of your Lordships who are better qualified to deal with them than I.
1026
At this stage I wish to broaden the context of my remarks, particularly tying them in with the final words of my Motion concerning the Commonwealth. Some of your Lordships may believe that I am well-intentioned and amiable, but gullible and rather impractical. That may explain why I support the Government's nearly successful attempts to join the European Economic Community. I am an ardent European. But one particular aspect that I do not care for in the Common Market countries is the way in which some of them appear to treat their immigrant workers. They do not treat them as people, only as units of labour. The political and economic future of this country may well lie in Europe. That may be the pattern ahead of us. We cannot turn our backs on the past; we cannot rub out history; we cannot ignore the Commonwealth. It is part of the fabric of this country. The transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth, an extraordinary British achievement, is no more vividly illustrated than in the titles of some Members of your Lordships' House from the Empire of yesterday. There is the title of the noble Lord, Lord Napier of Magdala, Magdala being a military victory over the Abyssinians. From the Commonwealth of to-day we have the noble Lord, Lord Constantine. of Maraval in Trinidad and Tobago and, my Lords, Nelson in the County Palatine of Lancaster. That title celebrates something rather different and rather special.
I do not want to start another debate on the Common Market, but this Bill looks to me like the beginning of a nasty process. Already the chances of Commonwealth immigrants helping our country with their labour are fractional compared with that of the aliens. Now, there are only 2,700 work vouchers a year for the whole Commonwealth. For each of the past two years there have been about 67.000 work permits a year issued for aliens. The logical conclusion of this process is that European nationals will have the same rights as you and I, freedom of movement and all that, while a Commonwealth citizen will be a unit of labour and nothing more. If. when the European Economic Community adopts a common immigration policy in a few years' time, the consequence of this for the Commonwealth is going to

1027
be as I have suggested, the Government may as well "come clean" and pack up the Commonwealth now, because so far we have heard nothing to reassure us that that will not be what is going to happen.
Last night, I went to see a friend of mine who has lived and worked for the past two years in a London borough with a very high concentration of immigrants. I asked him how the Bill would affect him in his work in his adventure playground. I will identify him to any noble Lord outside this Chamber, but you will understand why I do not want to mention his name here. In spite of everything that has happened, he felt that in the past two years communities and individuals had grown closer together, slowly but appreciably. But now, with this new Bill, and the interpretation of the Bill in that part of London, the message coming out from Government to the host community, to the immigrants and their families and their children was this: black people do not really belong here. In other words, the Government are not bringing peace but a sword.
As my friend was talking there was an echo of recognition in my mind, for I had just been reading something on similar lines, and it was this:
" I do not like to speak of the Brotherhood of Man because I do not know whether there will ever come a time when all human beings regard one another in this light. But what I do know is that the coloured inhabitants of this island—men, women and children—with all their characteristics, lovable and otherwise, are our neighbours. And if a man loves not his neighbour whom he has seen, how can he love God or humanity or indeed anything else which he has not seen?"
Those words are part of a memorable lecture given last year by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. If the noble and learned Lord can convince the House, and me, that this Bill is, in his words, definite, clear and based on principles; if he can show that it honours the Commonwealth relationship; if he can demonstrate that it will help the communities here to become better neighbours, then I will gladly withdraw my Motion. Otherwise, I shall move it formally and ask the House to support me in the Lobby.
5.22 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER BURY: My Lords, the only thing
1028
that surprised me about the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down was his hesitancy about voting against the Bill, because his speech seemed to me to be a very formidable indictment of almost the whole of it. As a loyal Member, I hope, of your Lordships' House I respect immensely the convention that when a Bill has been passed in another place with the mandate of the electorate behind it, we, when it comes to us, because of that mandate are very hesitant in voting against it, however much we dislike it. But I find it extremely hard to take in the language about there being a popular mandate for this Bill, because the bulk of its contents were things of which I had never heard before they came before Parliament. I believe it is true of many of us that we had never heard of those particular provisions before they were embodied in the Bill. So much for there being a mandate for these specific proposals. I intend, therefore, believing the Bill to be unnecessary and many of its provisions to be really damaging, to vote against it unless the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack persuades me otherwise by arguments which I, having followed many discussions on this subject, have not yet heard. I believe that noble Lords who, like myself, have no Party allegiance or allegiance other than to their own conscience, may think it right to take the same course.
I view the Bill with the utmost regret. I believe that. unless it is considerably amended, it will damage community relations in this country. I am sure that the Bill is based upon a sincere motive, and, after all, Her Majesty's Government contain men of the highest humanitarian ideals and attitudes. It is the motive of the Bill to clarify the existing law and its authors' wish to promote good community relations without introducing categories of first-class and second-class citizens. But I believe that their wish to do this is vitiated by a serious failure to understand the psychology whereon good community relations rest.
The Home Secretary has said in another place that the fundamental problem is not so much immigration as community relations. I am sure that that is true. I wholeheartedly agree. And in recent years we have been discovering more and more that good community

1029
relations do not entirely look after themselves. Since the growth in this country of minorities of citizens coming from different ethnic backgrounds, an immense amount of practical service in this field has grown up. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has just been referring to some aspects of that practical service in Yorkshire. There is the Community Relations Commission, which is in touch with many local councils, including both paid and voluntary workers. The Churches are rightly active in this field and no doubt the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry will speak about the very creative work done by his own community relations chaplain in his part of the country. No doubt he will speak also about what he believes may be the effects of the Bill upon that work. The two Archbishops have for the past 18 months had their own officer in this work to help and encourage the various efforts of the clergy in local community relations, and the post has been held by a distinguished man of great ability: Bishop Cecil Patterson, who came home two years ago after his exacting work as Archbishop of West Africa.
It is the workers in the field who get to understand deeply the fears and the sensitivities on both sides which bedevil community relations. It seems to me very odd that the Government have not from the beginning given more heed to the advice of their own Community Relations Commission about this Bill. I quote the words of the Chairman of that Commission:
"I have advised the Secretary of State that the present Bill will adversely affect the establishment of harmonious community relations. It will acutely increase the insecurity which coloured people living here already feel."
Those are the words of a man in close daily touch with the practical work which is being done in the cities. I mention also that some 34 local councils on community relations, including those in the great cities of Bristol, Leicester, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool, have given their view that the Bill is unnecessary and likely to be damaging.
What are the fears, my Lords, which create bad relations? There is, on the one side, the fear of our own resident white population, that the influx of a large increase in Commonwealth immigrants will bring with it a proliferation of social problems. But admittedly no
1030
such large increase is now happening, and it is not within the provisions of this Bill to affect in any marked degree the number of entrants. There is, on the other side, the fear of minorities of finding themselves regarded as second-class citizens; the fear of being regarded as a kind of "problem citizen". It is clearly not the intention of the Bill to minister to these fears. It is indeed the Government's belief that the provisions of the Bill will make such fears unnecessary. But I here find the lack of imagination quite astounding.
I put myself in the shoes of a coloured citizen in this country. He is assured that his citizenship is secure, that he can vote, that he can become a Member of Parliament, or, indeed, if the Sovereign so desires, a Member of your Lordships' House. Yet is this knowledge going to outbalance in his consciousness that fact that, as the Bill now stands, his entry into the country depends not upon his particular skills or the category of his work but upon a particular job; that in any case his family will not have the right to follow him into this country; that he may be deported on terms different from those of a patrial; that if he is deported his family may be deported, too, and that the tenure of his citizenship is liable to continuing hazards and uncertainties?
My Lords, it is in the mental context of all this that a coloured citizen may view the provision about payment being available for his repatriation if he is not settling down happily. Again I am sure that the intention of that clause is humanitarian, and the noble Lord who introduced the Bill today expressed that intention in vague humanitarian terms. What could be better than to say that, if somebody is unhappy here, is it not only kindness to pay to help him to go to his original home? But if the context of this is a Bill which does so much to prevent a sensitive person from settling down happily without being regarded as an odd kind of citizen, the matter is rather different. An analogy occurs to me. Suppose the State made a provision that if a boy is unhappy at school the State will pay for him to travel to become a member of some other school somewhere else. That would be a most thoroughgoing, humane provision. But it would appear to the boy to be less

1031
humane if in the school of which he was a member he was under a set of rules which marked him out in certain ways from his confréres and gave him a continual state of uncertainty about his standing.
My Lords, it is these considerations, chiefly, that lead me to think that, unless the Bill is amended very considerably indeed, damage will be done in a very sensitive area of community life in this country. I will only add that I do not think that a case has been made for the Bill's being necessary at all.
5.34 p.m.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, nearly 26 years ago I made a maiden speech from this Bench in another capacity, when your Lordships were kind enough to lend the Chamber to another place; and I must say that I feel privileged to make a maiden speech in rather different circumstances. I hope that I shall not be too controversial in the few remarks I have to make.
Having recently left a working-class constituency I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the most reverend Primate that as a Member of Parliament one was under continual pressure in recent years to take note of the problem; and I do not think any of us can underestimate that there is a problem. We have to face up to it, and we have to be as humane and as sympathetic as we can in all directions. Having lived in the Commonwealth, in South-East Asia, for five years in the 1930's, I understand many of the problems and am sympathetic to them. But over the last 60 years it has been Conservative Governments, in my view, that have faced up to the difficult problems: they have brought in considerable legislation. It was my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden who in another place introduced the Bill that became the 1962 Act. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that he did not like it, but many things have followed from that Act. Indeed, in his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that certain things had happened with which I rather gathered he had agreed. My noble friend Lord Butler said, when he introduced the 1962 Act:
"The justification for the control which is included in this Bill…is that a sizeable part
1032
of the entire population of the earth is at present legally entitled to come and stay in this already densely populated country. It amounts altogether to one quarter of the population of the globe and at present there are no factors visible which might lead us to expect a reversal or even a modification of the immigration trend…" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/11 /61, col. 687.]
That was my noble friend Lord Butler—a very reasonable man — speaking way back, nine years ago.
Even the Leader of the Labour Party at that time said that it was a "miserable, shameful and shabby Bill". Mrs. Castle, who was even more outspoken, in another place said on the same occasion:
"It is a violation of the Commonwealth idea to close doors to the free flow of traffic …If we had our way we would not make distinctions of any kind between any Commonwealth citizens in this matter, because we would get rid of control altogether ".
I have heard many remarks from the right honourable lady in other capacities on much the same lines.
But, of course, politicans were not alone in taking that line eight or nine years ago. When one thought in terms of the Commonwealth then, one had a broad prospect of the British Common-weath united. But a great deal has happened to the British Commonwealth in the last eight or nine years. I can assure your Lordships that nobody is more pro-Commonwealth than I am, but, with great respect, I feel that we have to be realistic and to recognise that a great deal has happened. If we are honest, we must admit that some of the countries are in the Commonwealth for what they get out of it; others are more patriotic. Nevertheless, we have had to adjust ourselves to the changes that have taken and are taking place in the Commonwealth today. We have heard the Statement dealing with the Common Market, and that also has a bearing on it.
In 1965, the Labour Government limited the annual quota of employment vouchers to 8,500, of which 1,000 were earmarked for Malta—and I hope that that will continue. They then decided to issue no more than half this number; they had to adjust their ideas by 50 per cent. Since the 1968 Act was passed, there have been further measures of control. I suggest to your Lordships that the aim must be to ensure harmonious relationships between the races in this country; that must be the objective.

1033
When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the problems of a West Indian arriving here after this Bill becomes an Act, and his probable housing conditions, I could not see how they would be very different than to-day. If he arrives here with no available means or no banking account, he really has to start from scratch. I am concerned about repatriation, and I do not think that any one man should be repatriated through any force whatsoever. I am concerned about the position of a man who is here for a probationary period. I should like my noble friend to explain the position of that man if, through no fault of his own—perhaps there is a disagreement—he loses his job. What facilities are available for him to get another job during the period when he is under probation? Certainly no force whatsoever should be used to bring about his repatriation.
As we have been told, Commonwealth citizens will have advantages over aliens. I agree that Commonwealth citizens coming to Britain will not have the automatic right to settle here. The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to students, and I think that this matter should be looked into, because one has seen enough trouble caused by our own students, and by those from abroad who are accepting the hospitality and the generosity of this country. Perhaps it is right that some firmer rules should be laid down. Of course, many European countries are much harsher than we are in dealing with foreigners working in their countries. Germany and Switzerland, for example, are very humane to their workers, but when there is unemployment in those countries foreign workers are the first to be sent home. So I think this country has a pretty good record of achievement in this regard, and I do not think any of us should overestimate the problems. Whatever the figure is—if it is a million new immigrants—surely our job is to assimilate them into our life and welfare and our economy.
That is quite a big task, and surely in recent years the real problem has been that they have concentrated in given areas. I do not blame them: it happens in New York, where you find the Germans in one area, and there are the Italians in Australia, up in the Brisbane sugar-growing area. And it is happening, as I say, in our own country. Anything that can be done to disperse the immi-
1034
grants when they come here, where they will be welcome to carry out certain jobs in social welfare and in industry, will be to the good. I think that part of this Bill will, over a period of years, help to rectify the present problem in this respect. If we can get a small number settling in an area where there are at present no immigrants at all, those who are here may follow. What we have to do is to consolidate the present position, to give good housing. Of course, one can well understand the feelings of an Englishman who has bought his home on a long-term mortgage and who sees the adjacent house overcrowded and the value of his home depreciating by 50 per cent. almost overnight. That is the sort of thing that causes dissention. I believe that if we could limit numbers severely over a given period we could provide better housing, better education facilities and more hospital facilities for those who are already here.
As for registration, in the long term I think it right—and I have thought about it a great deal—that registration should be with the police. It sounds more attractive to register elsewhere—the offices of employment, and so on—but the police have a vast experience of this matter. As has already been said, the police in this country are very sympathetic indeed. After all, many of us have to go to the police to renew gun licences, and for many other reasons, and nobody will be more helpful than the majority of British policemen. I think that the control under the Home Secretary will be more easily carried out and better adminstered by registration with the police. I know that this is not everybody's view, but I think it is what should happen.
I should like to wish the Government well with this Bill. I think it is timely. I am a little concerned about what amendments may be necessary when Britain goes into the Economic Community in Europe; there may not be many, but I should like an assurance on that point from my noble friend, when he replies. Meanwhile, I wish the Government well. We do not want to exaggerate the problems; we want to minimise them, and to be humane in all aspects to the people already here.
5.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I think it is perhaps appropriate to the spirit of this House that I should be called

1035
upon to pay some tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, on his maiden speech. In another place we were constantly in conflict and I have no doubt that we shall be constantly in conflict in this House. But it is appropriate that I should pay that tribute, because the spirit of this House is tolerance towards views to which we are opposed. Everyone who has listened to the speech of the noble Lord will have been impressed by his strength, by his directness and by the clarity of his expression and if this was a non-controversial maiden speech, may I say to the noble Lord how we shall look forward to the controversial speeches which he delivers in further debates.
Since the 1960s we have had a series of White Papers, of Bills, of regulations dealing with immigration, and this Bill has this to commend it: that it seeks to clarify and to co-ordinate a somewhat confusing situation. My regret is that in doing that it seems to me to have co-ordinated the worst features of the legislation and decisions which have preceded it. We are in this difficulty. The Home Secretary in another place is probably the most tolerant, broad-minded and least racially motivated Minister there, and in this House the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has asked us to accept this Bill, reflects the same spirit and temperament. I cannot help remembering the fact that when I moved the rejection of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill 1968 he was one of my supporters, and the speech which he has delivered to-day has been a speech in defence of the view that this Bill is a Bill which does not continue racial discrimination.
I think it is about time that we were frank on this issue. Is there anyone who doubts the pressure of public opinion or who doubts the motives by which this series of Bills has been introduced? Who can deny that behind them is the prejudice against race and against colour? We should never have had this series of Bills if there had not been the feeling among many people in the country, and the response of Ministers to that feeling, that something must be done to limit the number of coloured people who are arriving here. That has been the basis of the origin of all these Bills. With the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, I was in another place in 1962;
1036
I remember then the "Keep Britain white" agitation which there was in this country. There is not the least doubt that it was that racialist and colour feeling which brought the first Immigration Act, and I think that we are being less than sincere, we are being a little hypocritical, if looking at this series of Bills which have come before Parliament we do not recognise that racial prejudice and colour feeling have been behind them. I have a little sympathy and a feeling of sorrowfulness for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, because I know it is not from that motive that he should have to be responsible for putting this Bill before us.
I want to take one point which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and emphasised by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, about the attitude of the nonwhite community in this country. There is a strange contradiction here. I am finding from my own experience that at local level, largely as a result of the international friendship councils which have been established, under the initiative, first, of the most reverend Primate and of the community council, that there is a better feeling between non-white and white communities in localities. There are exceptions to that. At the same time, the attitude of cynicism, the attitude of hopelessness that is growing up among our non-white community, with Governments, with their legislation, with the Bill which is now before the House, is deeper than it has ever been.
The agitation of the non-white community in this country about this Bill has been moderate and one might therefore think that they are indifferent towards it. Not a bit. They are utterly cynical now; they do not expect anything more. They recognise that this Bill is the last of a series of Bills which makes them second-class citizens in this community—and when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, expresses the hope that this Bill may result in better relationships in the community of Britain he is terribly unaware of the feeling, as a result of this Bill, of the non-white community in our territory. My Lords, and with reason. Take first this division between patrials and non-patrials. How can it possibly be argued that thas is not racialist in basis? Incidentally, in the presentation of the Immigration Bill,

1037
in the explanation on page i, it is indicated that anyone who has a parent or grandparent connected with this country shall be regarded as a patrial. I do not find that in the clauses. I am a little perplexed by that contradiction. If the noble Lord is looking at the Bill he will find the reference on the opening page, relating to Clause 2.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but if he wants an answer I can give it to him. The reference to the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have a parent or grandparent with such a connection is contained in Clause 2, the patrial clause, although it is spelt out at rather greater length. The Commonwealth citizen only obtains the right of abode if his father or mother has United Kingdom citizenship. The Bill was amended in another place to delete the reference to grandparent.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, that explanation disturbs me even more. May I make a personal comment? I was born in India; my father was born in Africa, and both my father and grandfather were missionaries. My grandfather was born in this country 150 years ago. Is his birth in this country that time ago to determine whether I am a patrial or non-patrial? My Lords, no one can look at this distinction between patrials and non-patrials without realising that it is racialist in effect. Is there one non-white citizen in our Commonwealth countries out of a million whose parent, not the less his grandparent, was born in this country as a citizen of this country? Of course not. The number allowed into this country under this clause as patrials may be 10, 20, 100; but in the case of the white resident in Commonwealth countries, hundreds of them, thousands of them, comply. Their fathers were born here as citizens; their grandfathers were born here as citizens. The effect inevitably is racialist, with patrials by a vast majority being white persons and non-patrials the non-whites. My Lords, that view between patrials and non-patrials is supplemented by the fact that five years' residence in this country would allow them to be regarded as patrials, and the number of non-whites who will have that is insignificant compared with the number of whites.
1038
My net criticism of the Bill is the withdrawal of the right of any appeal by those who are coming into this country against the decision either by the immigration officers or in any other way to their exclusion. The case for continuing the appeal procedure is specially strong to-day because there was a decision yesterday by the Immigrant Adjudicator against the view of the Home Office; and that decision was that a British citizen in Kenya should have the right to come to this country because his wife and children were here, and that was regarded by the Adjudicator as a special consideration giving that right. Is that kind of appeal no longer to be allowed at all? Is the Home Office entirely to decide? If the Home Office had decided in that case, it would have been a different decision from that of the Immigrant Adjudicator. I hope that as this Bill goes through this House we may amend that particular reference.
I turn, thirdly, to this extraordinary proposal by which for one year an immigrant may be tied to an employer. This is indentured labour. This is a re-introduction of a system which we had all condemned and eliminated from our colonial territories years ago. First slavery goes, then indentured labour goes; and now under this Bill we reintroduce the principle of indentured labour. A man must have a job fixed before he conies; that job must be with an employer and he must remain in it for a year. What cannot the employer impose upon him in those conditions? He will be under the threat of dismissal and if he is dismissed he is liable to be deported. I have hardly ever known in recent years any proposal brought before Parliament which imposes such servitude towards a worker from an employer as is in that particular clause.
It is not only the individual who may be deported; it is his family. I listened with very great interest and sympathy to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said justifying the proposal that a family may be deported if an individual is deported, particularly the breadwinner. He put the proposal before this House almost in humanitarian terms. I think he knows that I have no doubt that if he had the interpretation of that clause he would carry it out in that spirit. But the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not always be Minister of State at the Home Office,

1039
and his right honourable friend, Reginald Maudling, will riot always be Home Secretary. We have to look at the terms of the actual clause. Clause 5(4) says:
"For purposes of deportation the following shall be those who are regarded as belonging to another person's family—

(a) where that other person is a man, his wife and his or her children under the age of eighteen; and

(b) where that other person is a woman, her children under the age of eighteen …"

I find it difficult to believe that there is anyone in this House who can justify the view that, because a man is deported, the whole of his family, his children under the age of 18 and his wife, shall be liable for deportation as well.
Finally, may refer to the proposal for police registration. I appreciate that the leadership of the police is seeking good community relations with the non-white population in this country. There are exceptional areas. There are two in London, one in Birmingham and one in Manchester where the psychological relationship between the police and the non-white community is very disturbed. However, that is not the attitude of the police as a whole, and it is not the attitude of the leadership of the police. It is largely because of that that the Police Federation itself has opposed this registration.
I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said as to other alternatives. I have looked at them, and I recognise at once that these other alternatives have considerable difficulties. I am challenging the view whether registration of this character is necessary at all. The worker who comes on a year's contract has his insurance card; he is known as he enters; all the particulars are there. Why the necessity of registration? Is this not a hangover from the Aliens Act; and is it not only because registration has been applied to aliens that it is thought to be necessary under this Bill for the Commonwealth immigrants who come here? I hope that during the discussion of the Bill in Committee stage we shall look at that problem very closely indeed.
May I say in conclusion that I believe that a terribly important principle is involved in this legislation. We are in a world to-day that is smaller; inter-relationships are so much closer; and I
1040
believe that the future of this world is going to depend upon a decision on two alternatives. One alternative is whether men and women of all races and of all colours, religions and creeds, can assimilate and co-operate; the other alternative is whether they will become segregated and divided. It is because this Bill, in my view, will lead to that division and segregation, that I hope very much that this House will reject this measure.
6.5 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I listened with tremendous attention, as I know all your Lordships did, to the prologue, as he described it, by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan in putting the harbinger of the Motion which is on our Order Paper. I welcome his initiative in putting down a Motion in criticism. Indeed, the terms of the Motion, and the way in which he introduced it, led me, like the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, to suppose that he was in fact intending it to be a condemnation of the Bill which is now before this House. I should like to say now, as the most reverend Primate has also told your Lordships, that if there is a Division, unless the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can persuade me to the contrary it is my intention to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
I take some heart from the fact that I am speaking eighth in this very long list, and I am very privileged to take part in the debate. It has about it the same atmosphere as that unforgettable debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, now law, that we had in 1968. Of the eight speakers who have so far spoken, only two—and quite naturally this includes the Minister who spoke first—have spoken in support of the Bill that we have now before us. I realise that I shall be covering ground which has already been covered, and which no doubt will be covered again before the evening is out, but I propose to subject the Bill to the test of certain questions which I submit it should pass in order to justify its sponsors. My first group of questions is this. Are any further restrictions on immigration needed? Are they needed at this time? Does this Bill do more than is already being done to restrict the numbers actually coming in, or prospectively arriving? Your Lordships will notice that I have

1041
not enlarged the question to include the point made by the Minister when he said that the Bill is intended to clarify existing legislation. I am not asking whether or not it is administratively desirable. I think that is of quite secondary importance.
I am quite unpersuaded by anything that I have read in the debates in the other place, or by anything that I have heard this afternoon so far, that the answer to any of these questions can be given in the affirmative—and I followed the debates in the Commons with considerable care. Of course controls are necessary. Nobody in his senses would deny that, but they already exist and are effective. The Minister said that he did not wish to speak too much in terms of figures, and I entirely agree with him. No one wants to play a misleading numbers game, but the figures must be used to speak for themselves on the existing controls. Less than half of the quota of 8,500 from the Commonwealth has been reached in the last two years. The total number of immigrants entering since 1968, including their dependants, has dwindled from about 53,000 to—the Minister gave a slightly higher figure—under 30,000. The prospect is that these numbers will further diminish, because most of the dependants have now joined their heads of family. On the basis of past experience, it is reasonable to expect that by maintaining the quotas—and I am in favour of this—not more than about 25,000 should be expected to come in annually.
I would say that by using the controls of the 1962 and 1968 Acts those " Phantom fears of a non-existent flood"—and I am quoting the Sunday Times—have been effectively stemmed in fact, as well as, I would hope, in the minds of those whose fertile imaginations ever imagined this flood would arrive anyway. I well remember the figures—two million or more—which were bandied around in the House in 1968 in support of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and for which there was no ground whatever. I would say, with great respect to the Minister, that those among our indigenous white population who are so fearful, have no grounds, with the controls that we have at present, for their fears that there is going to be large scale immigration. So I would say that by this token
1042
the Bill fails to clear the first hurdle that I have put forward; but because it is now with us I shall put my second question.
Have the proposed restrictions and controls been framed so as not to impede, in any degree, the process of harmonising community relations between the coloured citizens now in Britain and the rest of us, the host community? We all know that this question is really the crux of the whole matter, because unless we in this country can make a success of community relations and a reality of integration with people of different colours and cultures who are now living in some of our cities, then the future is bleak indeed. We have only to look across the Atlantic, to where so many ominous social precedents originate, to have a portent of what could happen here—and in this respect I agree with Mr. Powell—if one takes an entirely negative view.
The Government have insisted that the Bill will not affect adversely the Commonwealth immigrants already here, and the Minister has assured us that it is intended to be simply a clarification of existing legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway. said: "Let us be frank". I cannot refrain from being totally frank at this moment. I would say that this claim is demonstrably not the case, and a good deal has already been said this afternoon about the anxiety and insecurity that immigrants now in this country feel because of this Bill to bring about further controls. It particularly affects those who have arrived here within the last five years, but in addition there are the feelings, not only of fear but of resentment, of those who arc now the second and even third generations of immigrants, who are fully British citizens and have no other home, as well as the dangerous sentiments entertained by the more militant elements in our colour population, as a result of what they "so far know of this Bill. I have been able myself to confirm those feelings from personal contacts in the recent past with immigrant leaders in the Midlands, in Notting Hill and in Shepherds Bush. I could not help thinking that, coincidentally, one of my contacts must have been the person my noble friend Lord O'Hagan also met in charge of an

1043
Adventure playground, whom I greatly respect.
It might not matter what those fears may be at present if, in the event, they can be allayed, but I feel that there are evident, understandable and valid grounds for them. Those grounds have mostly been mentioned already this afternoon, but to me by far the most important is the climatic one, because it is to be found in the answer to my first group of questions. Given that it is unnecessary to change the existing restrictions and controls, I join with many other people and organisations which command respect in concluding that this Bill can reasonably be construed—I do not say that this is the intention, but it can be so construed—as being racial in intent. It appears—and I stress the word "appears"—to put an official stamp on xenophobia directed against coloured people generally, both those who are here and those who may wish to come. In particular, there is the definition and distinction of "patriality", not because of the rights the Bill confers on people by virtue of their parents' birthright—I have no objection to that—but because of the consequent withdrawal of the rights which Commonwealth citizens already have. I can only say that this is symptomatic and reflects a general attitude of prejudice.
Secondly, there are the valid fears arising from the registration requirements for non-patrials, and the inevitable liability of coloured people, whether they were resident here before the end of July this year or not, because of their distinctiveness, to be subjected to checks by the police on the question of holding certificates of registration, at any time and in any place. Whatever the logic or the legal precedent for this proposal, there is no more telling objection to it than the objection made by the Police Federation. I have checked personally with their Chairman, Mr. Reginald Gale, and have had confirmation of the views on this matter which he has already submitted to the Government. I have myself spoken to a number of police officers who are working in community relations and who have expressed their personal conviction that this requirement and the proposed method of implementing it will damage their work. The sense of insecurity is enhanced by the proposed powers of
1044
immigration and police officers to search premises without warrant, as checks against illegal immigration; and, again, the inevitable result will be that coloured householders will be subjected to such searches. I join with other noble Lords in claiming that I am second to none in my admiration of the police who, in this respect, are above reproach, but I am referring to the fears about what might happen and to the ill-intentioned allegations about what happens in regard to these searches.
Thirdly, there is the insecurity of the deportation clauses. I am not going to dwell on these clauses, because they have been mentioned already, but under certain conditions they include any immigrants who have been in this country for periods just short of five years and who are subject to controls. Granted that Amendments have been inserted which provide the Home Secretary with independent advice in the exercise of his discretion as to what is "conducive to the public good", and granted the right of appeal, the effect of these clauses on people already well-established in this country is bound to be unsettling. I would include among those who will find it unsettling their friends, their relations and the people in the neighbourhood. This is especially the case because of the further liability to deportation of the whole family of someone who is to be deported. However carefully they are operated—and I entirely respect the Home Secretary's sincerity and intention that these clauses will be very carefully operated so as not to cause injustice—they enhance fear.
Fourthly, there is the insecurity aroused by those clauses which limit and control the employment of future Commonwealth immigrants. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about them with great vehemence and strength, and I do not propose to say any more about them. I realise that they apply to future immigrants and not to those who are here, but who can doubt that these clauses will add to the feeling of job and family insecurity of Commonwealth citizens who are here now? It is already real enough in the current period of unemployment. What is more, I believe they will strain relationships between coloured workers and their white workmates, making the coloured workers feel constrained to be

1045
pliant to management as the price of holding down their jobs. I am not an industrialist, but I would say that that is not a healthy state of affairs for industry.
Lastly, I come to a matter which has been mentioned many times. I refer to the offer by the Government, however well-intentioned—and I accept the good faith of the Minister and the Home Secretary in this respect—4o provide financial assistance to immigrants desiring to leave the country and reside elsewhere, whether or not they are in real need of such assistance. The inference which has been drawn from this offer, given that provision already exists through the Supplementary Benefits Commission for those without means of subsistence, is that more departures would be officially welcomed, as indeed they already are by some private citizens. Moreover, as several speakers have pointed out, this clause could become the thin end of the wedge when pressures, such as loss of employment or lack of a suitable job, build up against coloured people. The fact of unemployment, or of being reduced to a lower level of earnings by the increasing pressures and competition from white British and—who knows?—from white European workers in the future, may well cause some Commonwealth immigrants to have resort to this "assisted departure" passage. This is very important. I would ask the Minister to say, when he comes to reply, not doubting his sincerity one little bit, whether this eventuality was foreseen by the Government when drafting this clause. I hope he will be able to assure me on this point.
Having failed the test of my first group of questions, the Bill, I maintain, fails doubly on this second question, which I repeat is crucial to community relations as they are at present. And if it fails this test, then it assuredly fails on the third question I put to your Lordships, which is this: how will the measures affect the image of Britain in the Commonwealth and in the developing world generally? I hope that this image has been hitherto, more or less, that of a nation which adheres to a belief in the fundamental dignity and equal rights of all men; as a land where prejudice and discrimination are not only condemned
1046
in theory but actively discouraged and deterred; and whose Government, in this respect, practise what they preach. I can think of nothing more calculated to diminish British prestige in the world, and thus to reduce British influence, particularly in the developing countries of our Commonwealth, than for a Government to give credence to the racial prejudices which undoubtedly, understandably but unfortunately, still exist among some of its citizens. That is what I fear, fairly or unfairly, will be the message of this Bill to the outside world. I should like to qualify that because it may well give heart to the rulers of Rhodesia and South Africa. But its impact on the minds of others at the head of the rising nations in Asia and Africa, many of them our good friends in the Commonwealth, will be adverse.
The British Council of Churches Community and Race Relations unit said this of the Bill:
"It is unnecessary, and it is unacceptable because of its likely effect on the nation and on the family life of the newcomers."
They went on to say that it is
"…unduly restrictive …and indicative of a narrowly conceived idea of British society, in which people of a different colour and culture are tolerated for the services they can render, but not welcomed for the enrichment they can bring".
I echo these views. But this would be a sorry, and perhaps in some ways a misleading, note on which to conclude a speech. So I should like to say this by way of realism and hope. Of course we must strictly control both the rate and the nature of immigration into this country, according to our best interests. The controls we need, we have. I have suggested where our true interests lie, and I hope I am not wrong.
My Lords, I realise that there are two sides to this question and that there is a feeling of insecurity also among our own people, created both by the numbers of coloured people already here and by fears, however falsely based, that these will multiply out of all proportion. But I say again: I do not think there is any ground for fear that unacceptably larger numbers of coloured people are going to come into this country in the future. Obviously, these fears also have a bearing on the problem of building good relations with the Commonwealth citizens who have

1047
come to settle here, and I realise that the acceptance and the absorption of the newcomers presents immense difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, who made a most impressive maiden speech, stressed this point. But how I wish that this was what we were discussing this evening, and not another spanner in the work of community relations!
There are many signs that the difficulties, which are great, can be overcome, and there is evidence—I hope we shall hear more evidence this evening—that in some areas they are already being overcome. I know of some. Take, as just one instance which came to my knowledge two nights ago, the entirely unofficial, spontaneous neighbourhood council which has been formed in the Goldborne Ward of Notting Hill, which is an area where there is 40 per cent. immigration from the Commonwealth. I regard that as a very encouraging example. Let us not be scared into panicky and negative measures by dint of any evidence to the contrary. Such measures, such a policy, can only make the problems of community harmony more difficult still. My Lords, it is always an act of greatness to admit error, and I think it would be an act of greatness by this Government to admit that this Bill is ill-conceived, that it reveals a one-sided sensitivity and that it is uncalled for. and to withdraw it even at this late hour.
6.25 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I would add my congratulations to those already offered to Lord Harvey of Prestbury on his maiden speech, which was trenchant. I look forward to further opportunities of a fellowship of controversy in your Lordships' House when he speaks again. May I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House because, as the Methodist Conference is in session, I am required to be present there and shall have to leave the Chamber before the end of the debate.
My Lords, this Bill is calculated, in the initial description of it, to provide
" a single code of permanent legislation on immigration control".
If your Lordships will not regard it as offensive, for the life of me I cannot understand how people of generous and intelligent foresight and understanding of
1048
the problem can ever have allowed this Bill to see the light of day. I find it completely intolerable; and I cannot believe in my own heart that those of such generous disposition as Lord Windlesham and the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack really believe in it. I cannot find it supportable on any of the propositions that have been advanced in its defence. To begin with, I find it completely unnecessary. If, indeed, there is an attempt to regulate the inflow of immigrants, then the patrial clause will provide a vagueness and an imprecision in this field by which a great many Commonwealth patrials will now have access to these shores; and the reduction of the Commonwealth immigrant to the status of an alien will largely increase the prospect of casual and migrant labour, which can well discourage the prospective Commonwealth immigrant from making the journey. I do not believe it is necessary because there is ample evidence that the already existing controls have provided a measure, and a satisfactory measure, of reduction and of stability. If this is an attempt to codify and express in precise terms what, after all, has need to be precisely conceived, and to take the place of already existing legislation, then I take it that the present situation is a shambles because there is widespread imprecision. So far as I can understand, a great many of the issues upon which precision is required have now been left in a condition of ambiguity from which they should be rescued but will not be by this Bill.
But, principally, this Bill stands or falls as an attempt to deal with the problem, as it is a problem, of immigration. At the risk of a platitude, may I say that there is no problem of immigration: there is only the problem of human beings who are immigrants. It is to that personal relationship of this Bill to the immigrant and the potential immigrant that there is the most widespread and desperate opposition, and in many cases there is a condition of despair. My noble friend Lord Hunt was speaking of an area of Shepherd's Bush. I know it well because I was responsible not so very long ago for trying to set up a multi-racial church there, and some of my colleagues are working there. I entirely endorse what my noble friend Lord Brockway had to say about the sense almost of apathy which has now taken the place of fierce

1049
resentment, and the feeling that this is yet another stroke from which they will do well even if they partially recover, only to await a further stroke. That is the kind of situation which I would endeavour to impress upon your Lordships is a real burden of conscience to those of us who are trying to do something in this field, and it is with a sense of appalling prospect that we look at a Bill which has already produced this kind of despair and is calculated to produce it in far larger measure as the days go by. And, to make one cursory reference to Mr. Enoch Powell, the fact that he has supported the Bill has driven the nail even more deeply into the wounds of many people, who feel that any support that he gives to a Bill must inevitably mean that there is a racial background to it and the realisation of the worst prospects they had feared.
Let me particularise on one or two of the issues in this Bill that have tended to cause perturbation and have caused some of us—particularly those represented in the Race Relations Group of the British Council of Churches to which a reference was made and which I was going to quote if my noble friend had not quoted it—to think that if a Bill of this kind is really to see the light of day and be an effective measure, it is totally inapposite that it should have begun its work without an attempt to define the real meaning in the community of to-day of citizenship. No such attempt is made at all. The concepts of citizenship, although they may be overtly non-racial, are racial in their impact in the patrial clause and, furthermore, are obviously racial in the fact that they have regarded, and very largely have stipulated, that the group which comes into this country as immigrant shall now be regarded in the same category as the alien group hitherto. This is manifest evidence of the fact that this is first-class and second-class citizenship, even in prospect. At the end of five years they have no automatic right to become citizens but have to justify their capacity to speak the language and submit themselves to the arbitrary decisions of officials. This is a personal matter upon which they feel, and rightly, that they are being relegated to an inferior position. And I cannot see how on earth they could be expected to feel otherwise. On the question of the kind of work that they will be able to undertake and the
1050
restrictions that will be applied to them, they are in fact relegated to the status of migrant workers; and in the first year, of indentured labour. This is intolerable. I cannot believe that those of a generous disposition would so reverse the processes and set the clock back.
Their fears are agitated by the prospect which looms before them of arbitrary attitudes taken by officials—and they come, in many cases, from countries whose experience gives ample cause for fears of what happens when the processes are left in the hands of people and are not set forth clearly in principle and tribunals. They will feel that the deportation orders, or the capacity for deportation orders, are iniquitous (and so they should feel); and they will further feel—and I with them—when the deportation order for a family is no longer to be a deportation but a supervised departure, that there is little comfort to be taken from the fact that a supervised departure is an improvement on deportation. It is the same thing. For these and for many other reasons, which have been amply and exhaustively deployed in your Lordships' House, I repeat what I have said, and I say it as a cri de cœur; that I cannot find any substantial reason for this Bill which does not conflict with the principles which I believe that a society such as we live in would desire to be put into effect.
I am reminded, as this comes from the same stable as the Industrial Relations Bill, of what the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack said. He quoted the verse of a hymn which attracted my attention—the hymn which says:
"Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
With blessings on your head."
That was an unfortunate choice, because that hymn records the inscrutability and omniscience which alone gives comfort to anybody. The first verse explains that:
" God moves in a mysterious way "—
as does the present Government. But it goes on to say:
" He plants His footsteps in the sea
And rides upon the storm "—
which may be all right for the Almighty but is a dangerous exercise for a Government that does not know its way around these matters. If there is a particular

1051
hymn which I would venture to quote, it would be:
" Turn back 0 man, forsake thy foolish ways ",
which is more appropriate for this particular occasion.
Up to now there has been, it seems to me, an overwhelming case made out against this Bill; an overwhelming case that rests, first, upon the proposition that there is no need for registration, no need for the particular restraints now envisaged; that there is plain iniquity in the exacerbation of feelings, in the compulsion for registration with the police; that there is increased insecurity, and no right of citizenship after the end of five years. There is, in fact, the assumption made, quite clearly—and I will now voice it—that the Commonwealth citizen, when he comes to this country, is tolerated for the services he can render and not cherished or welcomed for the enrichment he can bring. This, to me, is a complete and absolute condemnation of this Bill, and I very much hope, whatever it may cost in face-saving, that the Government will look again at this Bill and recognise that it has attracted to itself the overwhelming opposition of every community relations group and every section of the community, to say nothing of the British Council of Churches. It has alienated the feelings of Commonwealth Governments in Africa: It will not do any of the things that it is intended to do, and it would be very much the best thing if it were relegated to the place from which it never should have emerged, as a Bill which is unnecessary, immoral and unjust.
6.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: My Lords, although I have very much enjoyed listening to the noble Lord, Lord Soper, I feel that his gloom over this Bill has a very shallow foundation. Laws have to be made to protect society; and this Immigration Bill is no exception. It protects the persons who are United Kingdom citizens, and at the same time restricts entry into the United Kingdom of people who are not patrial within the meaning of this Bill. The Bill lays down the conditions upon which a person who is not patrial may enter or stay in this country, and it lays down in law that non-United Kingdom subjects must behave themselves—which again protects our
1052
society. If they refuse to behave themselves and end up in the courts on a serious charge for a misdemeanour I see no reason whatever why they should not be deported.
Before a person from the Commonwealth can emigrate to Britain lie must obtain a certificate of patriality and obey the emigration rules. On the face of it, your Lordships may wonder what this certificate of patriality may involve. In the Oxford Dictionary the word "patrial" is described as "rare". But for a person who can claim to be a British subject, a stamp on his passport to this effect would be all that he requires; and if he has reasonable proof, he would be able to obtain this certificate before he left a Commonwealth country or he has ample time to obtain the certificate during his first few months in Britain.
The Immigration Bill in its present form has been available to your Lordships for a very short time and I have not had time to study it fully. But in my research it was interesting to note that the then Conservative Government, under my great uncle, Arthur James Balfour, took powers in 1905 to control the admission to this country of alien immigrants. Commonwealth citizens were not controlled then, and even under this Bill they still have rights and privileges that aliens do not have. The Bill establishes for Commonwealth and alien immigrants a single system of control, which is an important step in establishing that public policy is not dominated by public opinion. Let me stress that I am confident that my noble friend Lord Windlesham and the Government will be absolutely fair to all immigrants, irrespective of colour or creed. I am equally confident that what my noble friend has said represents the highest principles of the Conservative Government and that those principles will remain unchanged.
Although I have a tremendous respect for the draftsmen who prepare Bills for legislation, there is one matter in this Bill that I find intriguing. So far as I can gather from the provisions in Clause 13(3)—the number 13 being a lucky one for some—under certain circumstances a person shall not be entitled to appeal against a refusal of leave to enter the United Kingdom so long, as he is in the United Kingdom. Therefore, such a person would have to return to the country

1053
that he had left and then launch his appeal. That will give the lawyers a few headaches, because if they win a case they can claim their expenses when the person arrives in this country; but if they lose they will have to claim their fees from a person in a foreign country.
Some noble Lords may feel that this Bill is against the interests of the Commonwealth. But there is one very important point; namely, that a British girl may marry an alien, bring him back to the United Kingdom and make him a British subject. So far as I can gather under present legislation had she married a Commonwealth citizen she would not necessarily be able to make her husband a United Kingdom citizen. This Bill will alter that. Another matter which causes me a little concern is the reference to an unregistered ship in Clause 2(2). I wonder whether any of your Lordships have ever heard of anyone being born on an unregistered British ship. The Royal Navy have not had women on board their ships since 1797. No merchant ship or fishing vessel is unregistered; and except for the smallest dinghies I do not know of any yachts that are unregistered.
It is also important to note that the Governments of most Commonwealth countries place far more restrictions on us than we do on their people. With the exception of Australia. New Zealand and possibly Canada, Commonwealth countries will allow a temporary work permit for a United Kingdom citizen only to a technically qualified person. The permit would expire when there were sufficient of their own nationals qualified to do the work. Furthermore, my Lords, unless a person or his parents were born in that country, or the person is comfortably well off and prepared to invest a large part of his wealth in the country, it is unlikely that he would be allowed to become domiciled there. Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, made an excellent maiden speech, covering a wide field extending from Europe to Australia. Another point which should not be overlooked is that it is much easier to get money out of Rhodesia than, say, India or Pakistan.
Appendix A to Schedule 1 of the Bill alters the British Nationality Act 1948. It states in the Appendix that a person
1054
wishing to be domiciled in this country must have a sufficient knowledge of the English language. I feel that to be a very important point, especially as he would be asked to take the Oath of Allegiance. The Oath starts with the words, " I swear by Almighty God …". There are so many religions in the British Commonwealth—Hindu, Sikh, Moslem, Buddhist et cetera—that I wonder what form their Oaths of Allegiance take. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, stressed that we were being unfair to coloured immigrants, and that they could not claim patriality. It was said that we were favouring white citizens. As a Scot (I wonder how many of your Lordships have been in Scotland at Hogmanay when we drink the famous old toast, "To absent friends, wherever they may be, on land, sea or air; and a safe return to their fireside, should they so desire") if there were any Scotsman or son of a Scotsman who wanted to get back to Scotland, by God! I would give him preference over anybody else.
Reference was made to local authority housing. Speaking for the moment as a county councillor, let me say that, all things being equal, if someone outside East Lothian wanted a house, I, as a county councillor, would always make certain that a person who lived in the county would get one first; and I do not think that anyone could ever blame me for doing so. It was stressed that a coloured immigrant might have a fear of the police. For many years the Commonwealth was governed by the United Kingdom. In the few years that Commonwealth countries have not been so governed, has the honour of their own police forces gone down to the extent that they are no longer trusted at all? My Lords, I cannot believe that.
Complaint was made that it was terrible to ask people to be domiciled in this country for five years before they could take out citizenship rights. If they behave themselves, they can stay; but if they do not, then, just as one would with a guest in one's own home, they can be asked to leave. I do not see why we should not be in a position to ask people to leave if they come here and do not behave. There is nothing in this Bill that leads me to having any misgivings.

1055
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has down a Motion that this Bill
"adversely affects the existing rights of Commonwealth citizens legally resident in this country."
If they are in this country, I do not think that they would be affected by the provisions in this Bill. Therefore, I feel that I should like to uphold the Government completely over this Bill and oppose Lord O'Hagan's Motion.
6.50 p.m.
TILE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I have sat in this House on many occasions listening to debates and have been swayed to and fro by excellent arguments for and against. But on this occasion I have listened and I am bound to say that I have found the arguments against this Bill completely unanswerable. To me they are extremely strong. Indeed, if I came into this debate uncertain on which side to vote, whether for or against the Second Reading, I would not be uncertain any longer. I have not heard any arguments that have persuaded me that this Bill is anything but inadequate and, in some cases, potentially dangerous.
I speak to-day against a background of a long-time involvement in race relations. For eight years I have been deeply involved in the building of a better understanding between the races in the area of Warwickshire. I am happy to say that my diocese was among the first to employ a whole-time chaplain for community relations. His task—a great one—has been to interpret communities to each other and to ensure that the many valuable contributions which communities coming from outside this country have to give to this nation shall be creatively and usefully made use of; equally, one of his other main tasks has been to remove the prejudices which exist in the minds, alas! of very many people in this country towards the new citizens from the Commonwealth.
One of my happiest tasks as a Bishop has been to spend many hours in the homes of Indian, Pakistani and West Indian families. I have also been present in their social clubs and services of worship. It is against this background of quiet, long-term building up of a better understanding between communities that I view this Bill with something approaching dismay. As I have read
1056
Many of the clauses of the Bill, I have come to the conclusion that it is not merely unnecessary but could be immensely harmful to community relations. Already, as I have gone around among immigrant families, I have sensed an atmosphere of insecurity and fear among the non-white population, caused by the prospect of this Bill's implementation. This insecurity is already leading to considerable instability and unrest. These families are already beginning to feel that they are being treated as a second-class community in this country and that the dice is being loaded heavily against them. Already many of the more thoughtful members of the non-white community are beginning to feel that in this Bill a distinction has been drawn between Commonwealth citizens who are accorded patrial status, the overwhelming majority of whom as we have already heard will be white, and those who are predominantly non-white. It is to me strange that upon the introduction of this Bill, the country was assured by the Home Secretary that
" … it is enormously important to reassure the immigrants already here … that they will have no loss of status under the Bill, that in this country there will be no first and second-class citizens."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/3/71; col. 44.]
But, alas! a detailed examination of the Bill belies these assurances.
Before entering into some of the clauses which seem to me to be liable to give unnecessary offence, I make one more point of general significance. I ask myself whether this Bill is really necessary from the point of view of restricting immigration into this country. I myself am not against restriction but there are already in existence restrictive powers which have quite recently been used. I refer to the reduction of the number of Voucher holders from 4,000 to 2,000 a year. I wonder whether we are not in this Bill taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut. As I travel about, I meet a lot of people who seem to believe that unless something drastic is done soon, this country will be largely populated by coloured people. But what are the facts? The figures show that there is now very little new immigration on vouchers. The bulk of the immigration is of dependants coming to join the heads of families already here. Therefore, the numbers of holders of vouchers coming into this country has

1057
gone down from 28,000-odd in 1963 to roughly 4,000 in 1970, while the number of dependants entering has gone down slightly, from 27,000 in 1963 to, roughly, 23,000 in 1970—not a very large figure compared to the total population. So the total effect of refusing the renewal of work permits could not affect more than 4,000 people per year, plus their potential dependant entry, while leaving unaffected the larger flow of dependants of immigrants already here and the already existing coloured population of one and a quarter million, which cannot be reduced. It may interest exponents of the so-called flood of immigrants into this country that in actual, sober fact more people have emigrated from this country since the war than have immigrated into it.
Then I come to the question of control. While I accept the necessity for some control on the number of persons entering the country, I am fundamentally opposed, as other speakers in your Lordships' House to-day have been, to the issue of work permits which tie a person to some particular employment in some particular place for a specified period, because I believe that these provisions will expose immigrants to arbitrary pressures from employers and also, possibly, from other employees—a point that has not been mentioned up to now. I would prefer that a permit should be granted for a specific character of employment rather than for a specific job. Furthermore, I believe that this insistence on the renewal of a work permit at the end of the first twelve months and then, thanks to an Amendment accepted in another place, after three years, would turn Commonwealth immigrants into migrant labour, with all the social consequences that this involves. Unhappy family problems such as are to be seen in other parts of Europe would inevitably arise. Constant mobility would prevent continuity of children's education and the immigrants' family life would be largely undermined.
As a Bishop concerned about pastoral and domestic happiness, I find myself particularly apprehensive about those clauses in the Bill which affect family life—those, for instance, in regard to deportation, by which a whole family will have to leave the country when the head of a household is convicted. May
1058
I say that I was not completely satisfied by the assurance offered by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham that deep consideration would be given to each case. I believe that the family of the deportee should be entitled to make their own choice as to whether to leave, and the law should safeguard that right. Still on the subject of deportation, I feel that the individual should be given the right to appeal, and that the Home Secretary should be required to state his reasons why he thinks the deportee should leave. Furthermore, I believe with all my heart that the right of appeal should be allowed in this country. It seems to me unfair that while a person claiming to be a patrial or holding a work permit can appeal before he is removed from the country, a person in some other category, or a dependant claiming a right to enter whose entry is refused, can appeal only once he has been removed from the United Kingdom. That seems to be unfair.
Another point I would make, as a Bishop whose ministry must inevitably be concerned with people's welfare, is the widespread unhappiness, insecurity and fear that have been aroused as a result of those requirements in the Bill which state that every non-patrial immigrant is required to register with the police. Your Lordships have already heard a great deal on this subject, but I hope that we shall hear a great deal more, because, though I pay high respect, as have others, to the police, I am afraid that I cannot agree with the otherwise excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, when he likened the immigrant going to the police to the man who goes to ask for a licence for a gun. There is all the difference in the world between the timid immigrant going to the police and the somewhat secure squire asking for a gun licence: the two could not possibly be more distinct.
Furthermore, as a Bishop who again, if I may say so, is deeply concerned about the welfare of the immigrant community, I am bound to say that I felt considerable unhappiness as I read Clause 30, relating to the return of the immigrant who is suffering from mental illness. Here again I seem to see a bias of treatment—indeed, I come across it again and again throughout this Bill—against those who are not white. If a white person suffers.

1059
from mental illness, he receives treatment in this country, where treatment of mental illness is among the best in the world. But if a non-white immigrant suffers from mental illness, he is forced to go back to a part of the world where, in many cases, the treatment of mental sickness leaves a lot to be desired. Can one really say that this is treating the immigrant with that fairness which one has come to expect from the people of this great nation?
Yet another point that causes me considerable worry in this Bill, and in the pastoral scene, is that part of the Bill which relates to the proposed system of controls on the family life of immigrants. At present, Commonwealth immigrants have a statutory right to bring in their wives and children. But it appears that in future they will be able to do so only if they are able and willing to support and accommodate them without recourse to public funds. I find this provision unsatisfactory and undesirable, because it is open to a wide variety of interpretations and to the possibility of abuse. For instance, what happens to somebody who is temporarily laid off from work through no fault of his own? I can only hope that such a man will be treated with great sympathy and understanding; but it seems to me that under the present provisions he would not be allowed to be joined by his wife and children. Furthermore, I am perturbed by the very wide discretionary and administrative powers left to the Home Secretary and immigration officers. I was going to say a word or two about the rather, as I thought, iniquitous clause about a man in the Armed Forces not having his five years regarded, so that when he finishes he has to start all over again. But I am delighted to know that in another place an Amendment was accepted to alter that.
To summarise my reactions to this Bill, I am bound to say that, as a Bishop concerned with pastoral dealings, and with people who have come into this country and who are much needed for the work force of this land, I feel that the general temper of this Bill will do much to worsen and put backward the quiet, long-term, carefully built-up work of conciliation. and the building of good
1060
community relations which have been in existence in this land during past years.
In closing, I cannot help feeling that there are in this country far too many people who still regard immigrants as an unhappy necessity; who treat them as second-class citizens, and who—I must put it bluntly—would not be at all unhappy if all of them were to be asked to go home within the course of the next few years. I am not saying that this Bill has been motivated by the pressure of those people, but I must say that parts of it go a long way towards satisfying the desires of those people. This seems to me a total misunderstanding of what in past centuries has been one of the glories of this country—the ability to absorb other races and the people of other nations, using the particular contribution which they have brought with them to enrich our own, so that together we have formed a finer community than was in existence before they came. We must endeavour to take from people the purely negative attitude to immigration and supplant it with a positive concept of a multi-cultural, multi-racial family, vibrant with life and rich with manysided culture. My fear, my Lords, is that many of the clauses of this Bill, which I feel were written into it by men of good will, who believed that they were doing a good service to this country, will in actual fact lead to a tragic worsening of relations, and that the Bill will do much to increase the insecurity which coloured people living here already feel. Unless the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack works a miracle of conversion in my mental thinking, I am bound to say that I shall vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure that there is one sentiment at least which unites all of us in this House, and that is our feeling of heartfelt sympathy for the two noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to whom it has fallen to sponsor this unfortunate legislation. Both of them are men of reputation for liberal and sympathetic views, and I cannot believe that either of them can be really happy in the task which has fallen to him to-day: because, as I hope to demonstrate in a moment.

1061
I believe that this is a Bill born of expediency out of muddle-headedness, and that is not a very satisfactory lineage. Its origin no doubt lies in the Conservative Election undertaking to do something about immigration. But, as others have pointed out, including the most reverend Primate, in a speech to which we all listened with the deepest attention, the Election undertakings, including those of the Prime Minister himself, referred basically to the numbers of immigrants and to their pressure on housing and other social services.
This Bill has been criticised in all the speeches, I think, but three to which we have so far listened. It has been criticised outside the House by the Church, by the organisations concerned with community welfare, and also, very interestingly, most severely criticised in the Report on the Bill published by the Bow Group. As we have already been told, the Bill has nothing to do with numbers, for the very good reason that no further legislation is required. The Home Secretary already has all the powers that he needs to control the rate of entry and to vary it for different classes of entrant. All that the Bill does in respect of numbers, as we have already had indicated to us, is to add quite considerably, even without the aid of certain grandparents who were eliminated in another place, to the number of those who in future will be able to enter as of right under the patrial clauses, which, of course, have their unavoidable racialist undertones, even if that was never intended.
If legislation were needed, it is of course in the field which this Bill does not clarify, but still further confuses; namely, as my noble friend Lord Soper indicated. and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the field of citizenship. Here, as we know, we have the legacy of the British Nationality Act 1948, which assumed that the British Commonwealth of Nations had some meaning. This Bill makes it plain that its sponsors have abandoned the thoughts underlying the 1948 Act; but they have not been sufficiently courageous or clear-headed to make a proper job of it. Our citizenship laws do not seem to have figured very largely at Brussels or Luxembourg. But the sooner we can have clarification in this field, I believe the better, because at present, in terms of our proposed entry into the Economic Community, I do not
1062
believe that anyone can say with assurance just what a British national is. This is something that we shall need to know, and maybe we can be helped by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner or by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I do not think that this Bill does anything to help us.
The sensible and statesmanlike thing to have done would have been to face the citizenship muddle whereby some people possessing United Kingdom passports can, nevertheless, be denied entry, while others without them have the right to walk straight in. This Bill, in the patrial clauses, to my mind positively adds to the confusion, instead of seeking to clear the situation, where we are at present open to every charge of ill-faith, hypocrisy and racial discrimination by retaining the status of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from which the meaning has been eroded. So this is our first charge against the Bill: that it is irrelevant to the political pledges of the Party opposite, and that by failing to deal with citizenship it makes an intelligent and consistent immigration policy virtually impossible.
Now I do not for one moment deny that the 1968 Act to control immigration failed in the same way, but the circumstances, as we all recall, were entirely different and provide no grounds of excuse for not legislating properly now. That Act, which caused many of us extreme anguish, was passed as emergency legislation to meet a particular situation at that moment of time. But now we face no emergency: on the contrary, as many noble Lords have said, immigration has been reduced to a trickle. There is therefore complete freedom to take a proper look at this root problem of citizenship. So one must look rather more deeply into the possible reasons for this failure. There is no emergency, there is no lack of time: what, therefore, is the reason for bringing in a Bill which everyone at the Home Office must surely know is a botched job? Apart from the political calculations to which I have referred, I cannot help feeling that there is something rather more sinister. The Bill is not based on uncontrollable numbers swamping our urban centres: we have dealt with that. This Bill is not based on the premise that we must not have too many Commonwealth immigrants for settlement. It is saying to them, " Unless you have a

1063
British ancestor we really do not want you as a permanent immigrant at all ".
The Government have been understandably shy about spelling this out plainly in public, but I think it is our duty to make it clear not only to the British public but also to our Commonwealth colleagues, because I believe this is what the Bill is really about. I must say I should have had a greater respect for Mr. Maudling—for whom I have a very warm regard—if in the later stages of the debate in another place he had not tried to pretend otherwise; because in the final stages he was still pretending that Commonwealth citizenship meant something. But, my Lords, just what does it mean? As the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, said in his very moving speech, what is left is the right, if you have managed to enter this country at all, to vote, to stand for Parliament at Westminster and—I stand to be corrected here—to be considered for the magistracy. You have to get over the barbed wire fence first and you are subject to deportation thereafter on conditions to which Commonwealth citizens have not hitherto been subject. There is no absolute right to register after five years. If you have managed to get your work permit extended for long enough, you will then join the queue and face the same tests as aliens. Your allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen will get you no further than if you owed no allegiance, unless you also happen to have the right ancestor. That it is the basic intention of the Bill to transform Commonwealth immigrants into migrant workers is our sharpest criticism of it.
Most industrialised countries have people from poorer territories coming to work in them. They can be treated as migrants or welcomed as settlers. The social consequences are vastly different, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, must appreciate. The great majority of aliens who come here to work do so as migrants, and have always done so. They come to earn money either to send or take home and, after some time, to return home themselves. But the great majority of Commonwealth immigrants, apart from students, come here to settle. They want to establish family life; they want to set up a home. It is this which will be made so much harder for them by
1064
this Bill. This, to me, is the really basic and crucial objection to this Bill. But the sponsors of the Bill seem to wish to pretend that this is of no consequence. I should like to quote from a letter sent in reply to one of her constituents by Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, Member of Parliament for Gloucester, because this illustrates so perfectly what I have been arguing and it is much more unconsciously revealing than some of the ministerial set speeches. Ministers, after all, have to be on their guard.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am not quite clear what letter it is that the noble Baroness is proposing to quote. Is it a letter from Mrs. Oppenheim or a letter sent to Mrs. Oppenheim by a constituent, and does she have the permission of either or both parties to do so?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, quite frankly, I have not consulted Mrs. Oppenheim, but her constituent, to whom the letter was sent, was prepared to have it circulated and quoted.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, I have been a Member of this House for a fairly short time. Might I ask whether it is in order to quote in this House without the permission of a Member of another place something which he or she has written?
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I believe that one is right in saying that the recipient of a letter has possession of it, and if the recipient of a letter which has been written to him on a public matter is willing to have it quoted, it is possible to quote from it. I am sorry if the noble Lord does not wish to hear the argument. I will paraphrase it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, not at all; I recall quite clearly the reason for the rule about not quoting speeches made by Members of another place: it is that to do so might cause a conflict between the two Houses. If Members of one House were permitted to criticise Members of another House who had no opportunity to reply, then an unfortunate situation might be created. I think we must leave this to the noble Baroness, but if she is proposing to quote from a letter, without permission, written by a person in another place, a Member of Parliament representing her constituency,

1065
I should have thought this was not a practice in line with that which we usually pursue.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I enter a plea to the noble Baroness? I am not seeking to speak other than as an ordinary Member of this House in doing so, but as one who has been a Member of Parliament of one House or the other since 1938 and a Member of this House, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, on and off for quite a long time, may I ask whether she would reconsider her attitude towards this matter? I do not recollect ever hearing direct references to anybody other than a Minister in actual words, even though not contained in speeches, for the most stringent tradition of this House is that we do not attack Members of Parliament in another place. Ministers, of course, by exception, are fair game, and so probably are leaders of the Opposition. It is a most stringent rule and I wonder whether the noble Baroness might not reconsider an action which may not be strictly in accordance with the best traditions of this House. I do not claim any right for saying this except as one Member to another.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, in view of what noble Lords have said, I do not want to do anything which is detrimental to good feeling in this House. All I can say is that the letter came to me as circulated by a most reputable church organisation and was presumably sent to them for the enlightenment and information of members of the public. I am content not to quote directly from it or to use the actual words. All I will say is that two points emerged very clearly from this correspondence. One was that no distinction was to be made between aliens and Commonwealth citizens and that what had worked very well for aliens in the past was quite good enough for Commonwealth citizens in the future. The other thing was that it did not matter that they had no security for the family through not knowing whether or not their working permit would be renewed, because they would not be here permanently anyway. It seems to me from the way it was expressed in that letter that the cat was jumping well and truly out of the bag.
I will not pursue this particular matter further, but I want to pursue the sub
1066
stance of it. What is proposed in this Bill is to take away the security which Commonwealth citizens, once they have arrived here and in the limited numbers in which they are now permitted to arrive, now have. This is what the Government are proposing to remove. As he right reverend Prelate has quite properly indicated, from that flows all kinds of social consequences which will be detrimental to he stability of family life. This will occur at the early stages which are of crucial importance for people coming here to settle and try to adjust themselves to a new form of life. In the first year, they will not know at all what is going to happen. Then, as a result of the Amendment accepted in the other place, they will have a respite for three years, after which the hideous uncertainty will raise its head again: what is going to happen at the end of the four years? Are they going to be allowed to stay then, or is that the point at which the axe is going to fall—because if they are to be allowed to stay longer they will at least have the right to apply for registration?
These uncertainties can be extremely damaging, both socially and for the individual. What does it mean? Most of these people come thousands of miles; the great majority of them come with a wish to settle. There are some who come as single men whose aim is to make money to send or take back home to set up a small business in India or Pakistan. They are a minority. If a man comes to this country in the circumstances which this Bill is now going to introduce, for the first time for these people, he will not be able to settle a family because he will not be able to raise a mortgage; he will not be able to take out insurance at normal rates; he will not be able to make hire-purchase agreements for buying furniture, and so on—not to mention another grave uncertainty about his children's education. How can the parent plan the education of his child if he does not know whether he is going to be here for twelve months, four years or indefinitely? How can the child adjust itself, not knowing if its father is to stay here for one year or four years, or indefinitely? It is this kind of consideration which moves those of us who are very much disturbed about this Bill.

1067
For whom is this being done? It is not for those who are already settled here. There are some difficulties about them, but in general terms we have received assurances, which I accept in entire good faith, from the Home Secretary that the intention is that those who are here already shall not be detrimentally affected. There are one or two points which justify the particular passage in the Motion tabled by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan. Broadly speaking, we accept that those already here will not be adversely affected, except in one or two particulars. Therefore in this matter we are concerned only with the future.
Calculations have varied and, as my noble friend Lord Hunt said, one does not want to play the "numbers game". On the calculations that we have made, the people who would be affected by this Bill would be of the order of 4,000 coming in with their dependants, who might number some 15,000. In other words, whatever calculation you make, give or take a few thousands one way or the other, the total is infinitesimal in our present social scene. Nevertheless, we are going to have this Bill and therefore it seems to me that I was right in suggesting that the Bill makes no sense at all unless the Government are in effect saying to these people, "Come in to work for a short time because we happen to need you on the buses, in the hospitals, or wherever it may be; but as permanent settlers in this country, keep out! We do not want you; you are not welcome." We are not a rich enough, a generous enough society to welcome even this small number of Commonwealth immigrants on terms which will make for peaceful and stable family adjustment. When I say this I am thinking of friends of mine, Commonwealth immigrants—people like Learie Constantine, David Pitt, and the rest, who have very much enriched our lives. Those of your Lordships who had the privilege of listening to my noble friend Lord Constantine's maiden speech will, I trust, have his words in the forefront of your minds when considering this Bill, otherwise your applause on that occasion will have been rather hollow.
There is much in the Bill that we shall have to examine at later stages, but I would remind your Lordships (not much
1068
attention has so far been paid to this point) that the Bill should be read with the two sets of rules which accompany it: the Draft Immigration Rules Control on Entry and the Draft Immigration Rules Control After Entry. It is impossible to appreciate the full flavour of the Bill without the "sauce" of the accompanying rules. I am well aware that many of them, though not all, are a carry-over from earlier rules and regulations. Where they have been altered it appears to me that it is almost always for the worse. On some points the Home Secretary has bowed to criticism, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has told us, has promised further consideration. Naturally we are very glad that he has done so, and we are very grateful for the concessions which have been made, some of which frankly, fully justify our reception of the Bill.
If I may say this to the right reverend Prelate on the question of mental illness: assurances have been given that the administration of the rules will be such that the interests of the patient will always be put first. This is a heartening assurance to have. While certain concessions have been made, including certain improvements in the right of appeal, there are still matters which need clarification. One of the things that I am sure everybody appreciates has disturbed people intensely is the proposal for family deportation. We are glad to have assurances from the Home Secretary that there will be some right of appeal, but I am not clear what the grounds of an appeal might be in his proposed Amendment. No doubt this will be revealed to us before long. There remain wide discretionary powers that are left, not only to the Home Secretary but also to immigration officers, as a study of the rules reveals.
In our view, there are two things, at least, which we must endeavour to do to improve this Bill at its later stages, and there are many others that I hope to see. I wish to stress two which have been mentioned already. One is that we should establish in the statute the right or a legally settled immigrant to bring in his wife and children. That should not be left to any dubiety at all. If a man is allowed to come in legally and properly, and to stay here for settlement, he must

1069
have the absolute right to bring his wife and children. I cannot believe that the Government intend otherwise. But the statutory undertaking is not in the Bill. This has led to a great deal of apprehension, and I hope that this omission can be made good.
The other ground of apprehension is Clause 29, the repatriation clause. Although we have had assurances from the present Home Secretary that repatriation under this clause will be voluntary and not forced, there is no undertaking in the statute that this will be so, and I feel strongly that it would help, in community relations and in general reassurance, if that could be established by statute. Your Lordships may ask me: " Why do you pick these two particular provisions, when there are others which also cause disquiet?" I must be quite blunt: it is partly because they were referred to in the Third Reading debate in another place by Mr. Enoch Powell, who welcomed the potentiality, the possibility, for further action by administrative means under the Bill as it now stands in both these particulars; the limitation of bringing in the family of people settled here, and the possibility of repatriating people in far larger numbers than I am sure is in the minds of the present Administration. But, after all, we must legislate for possible other Administrations. This kind of remark in another place has, I know, caused deepest disquiet.
TE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may try to help the noble Baroness about this. I speak in the presence of the noble and learned Lord who speaks on legal questions, but I do not think Clause 29 gives any power at all to repatriate anybody who is not already wanting to go. The only provisions in the Bill, or in the existing law, for repatriation otherwise than by consent are contained in the deportation clauses. Not merely is it not the intention of this Government to use this clause for forcing repatriation, but it would be illegal for them to do so if the Bill came into law.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am most happy to have the noble and learned Lord's assurances because of the references by Mr. Powell to the very wide ambit of this clause as he inter-
1070
preted it. It is only right that we should ask for firm assurances on this point because, there is no doubt whatever, that there is disquiet about it. Therefore it is for us to allay this disquiet. The general impression which this Bill has made, even if it is not intended to affect those who are already settled here, has been very grave indeed, as we have been told by people of considerable authority from all quarters of the House.
My Lords, I will conclude by quoting from the Bow Group—not from a Labour Party document but from a Conservative document—which I felt summed up so well what I myself thought about this Bill. The report said:
"No one would deny the need to control immigration. Many would deny the morality and political wisdom of a policy which sets out to remove inequality but in fact creates two classes of citizen and adds to potential causes of friction in the community. In doing so it weakens the claim of the whole of society to be a just and tolerant one, and of the governing Party to be one of compassion, for it seeks to appease hatreds rather than destroy the foundations of tension and mistrust upon which they are built, and in so doing may retard the progress towards real assimilation which is vital if the whole community is to enjoy peace and freedom under the law."
Those words were written by a young lawyer, a lecturer at the Inns of Court School of Law. One can only hope that his thoughtfulness and idealism will touch the hearts and minds of his political leaders.
7.33 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, the Home Secretary in another place, in introducing this Bill on Second Reading, made such singular claims with regard to its place in history that I felt obliged to begin my speech by depriving him of some of his illusions. He wished it to be logical and definitive in its field. I suggest that within a Parliament or two we shall have more logical legislation on this subject. He also suggested that the complexity of the present Bill is due to the fact that it replaces a system that was itself complex. I suggest that it is complex because it has removed nothing from present complexities, but has accepted them and then added new distinctions of its own. The subject has now become so complex, the overlapping categories bear so little relation to real distinctions, that I am tempted to believe that there must be

1071
some theologians within the Government or behind the Government who are responsible for legislation in this field. Nor is this complexity necessary, and this can best be appreciated by considering how simple it could have been.
In the field of citizenship we need the following categories. We need, I suggest a United Kingdom citizenship which applies exclusively to the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. At the present the best we have is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, which means that no one is aware of the boundaries of his own citizenship since no one is at any moment aware which of our colonies remain to us in that capacity and which just have acquired, or may next acquire, independence which is on continuous offer to them. We need, secondly, a category for the citizens of our colonies; and since in practice the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act has relatively already put at a disadvantage the occupants of such a category against the occupants of a category of United Kingdom citizenship, even while continuing to include them in the same description, I therefore see no objection to acknowledging a distinction which for practical purposes we have already made. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is looking a little puzzled. The distinction that I meant (if he was looking puzzled at that) is the distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who were born in this country or had a parent or a grandparent born in this country, and those of whom that is not true. We need a category, thirdly, for those who are not citizens, and these of course might be called aliens.
We need also to know what citizenship is—and basically political rights in the United Kingdom should surely go only with United Kingdom citizenship—and to know what are the conditions for acquiring it. And if we wish to give privileges to some countries rather than to others, surety we should do this by making access to United Kingdom citizenship easier for them by means of privileges under a quota system, as we have done in the cases of Malta and Gibraltar, rather than by the perpetuance of different categories of citizenship. As Mr. Enoch Powell vividly put it in another place (and I, too, assure noble Lords that this will be my only reference
1072
to the right honourable gentleman) citizenship is a whole concept and should not have bits torn off it, some to be handed to one group and some to another.
The anomalies which exist in our laws, and which this Bill perpetuates, are indeed astonishing. Even if the category of Commonwealth citizens is itself not yet an anachronism, it is surely an anomaly that Commonwealth citizens should have voting rights in this country. Their position is now made even more absurd by the fact that non-patrials, those serving a probationary period of residence here and liable to deportation during that period, nevertheless have during that period the right to vote and sit in Parliament, unlike the aliens with whom they are supposed to have been put on the same footing. It is no less absurd, I suggest, that citizens of Eire, although they themselves are not British subjects, nevertheless are treated by us as if they were British subjects to the extent of having voting rights immediately on entry in this country. It is curious that we, who have always taken such particular care to see that we do not reward individuals in this country for their services to the State in any way that would increase their power in the State, nevertheless offer political privileges to great groups of foreign nationals.
Of course it is clear how these problems have arisen. They have arisen because we wished to cling on to the idea of ourselves as the governor and possessor of an Empire, even when that Empire was breaking up into independent countries. We paid the punishment for this folie de grandeur in 1968 when the Kenyan Asians began to draw on the promises we had made, and we were forced into the ignominy of dishonouring them. I am therefore delighted that the Government have not sought to reinstate into the Bill the provision whereby a Commonwealth citizen was to have a right of abode in this country if he had a grandparent who was born here. I respect the attempt that represented to value the positive emotional ties between this country and countries of the Commonwealth, and not the negative ones. But essentially it was just a repetition of our habit of making Imperial promises which stand only for as long as they are not taken up. And

1073
such promises, as I see it, are the promises of an impostor.
Nor did the authors of this Bill hold in mind the effects of our entry into the Common Market, as I thought the hesitations or at least the reservations of the Home Secretary, when dealing with questions relating to the compatibility of this relationship with obligations under the Treaty of Rome, made quite clear. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord who ordinarily sits on the Woolsack can let us know, when he winds up, if indeed, as I believe has been suggested, we are to have a White Paper dealing with this aspect.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, perhaps I can do it now since my noble and learned friend is not in fact sitting on the Woolsack at the moment. The Home Secretary has said very clearly that there will be no need to amend the immigration Bill if Britain joins the E.E.C. It is, however, true to say that there are a number of provisions affecting the free movement of labour and it is the intention of the Government to bring out a paper summarising the position as soon as possible.
LORD REAY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming that information on the subject will be released. What I have so far said has been to do with possibilities that the Bill has missed in the field of defining our citizenship in a manner suited to our position in the modern world. I say "Goodbye" to them now, confident that within a Parliament or two we shall meet them again.
I should now like to turn to what the Bill provides, and I should like first to deal with two provisions of the Bill which have provoked considerable opposition. On the question of an appeals procedure for the dependants of heads of families against whom a deportation order has been made, I am satisfied with the concession that has been made and which was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, this afternoon. On the question of police registration, in distinction to most noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon I am on the side of the Government. It seems to me that if a system is to be introduced whereby coloured immigrants seeking citizenship
1074
in this country have first to pass through a probationary five-year period, just as aliens have to do—and this is what the Bill proposes and therefore it is what we can assume will become law; and whether it should or should not be the system I shall come to in a moment—then I believe it would be highly dangerous to make a single exception for coloured immigrants in absolving them from the need to register with the police.
It might be better to have both aliens and coloured immigrants register with some other agency; I can easily imagine that to be a better arrangement. But to require aliens to register with the police, and then make an exception for coloured immigrants on the ground that they as a group must be spared this point of contact with our society, would be to give away the argument that we ourselves believe that the police behave in a prejudiced manner towards coloured immigrants. For it would stimulate the expectation that we would always support allegations against the police of racial prejudice if we once show, by such an Amendment as might be proposed to this Bill, that we believe such allegations in principle to be true. To cocoon the immigrants against requirements that all other citizens are subjected to cannot in my view be a constructive step towards integrating them into our society.
I should now like to turn to the question of whether or not the system that this Bill proposes to introduce, and which is perhaps the main proposal of this Bill, is a correct approach to the problem; namely, the proposal that coloured immigrants should serve a probationary period before becoming citizens. It seems to me that this depends upon whether you attach priority to making more sense of our citizenship laws and rights of entry, or whether you prefer to consider the problem as an aspect of our policy towards our coloured communities. And if you believe that it is more important to treat it as an aspect of the latter, and therefore oppose the provision, you must also, as I see it, believe that to make the distinction between patrials and non-patrials is an artificial way to divide a group, which will continue to have far more in common between these two parts than either part will have with the rest of the community.

1075
As I see it, that is the strongest ground on which opponents of this Bill can base their objections. But to believe that is to pass a commentary on the prospects for integration in this country, and I should now like to turn to a consideration of that question. It is the final part of my speech although I shall deal with it in a little detail.
It is as well to be plain about what we understand by "integration". I do not imagine that there is a Member of your Lordships' House, or of another place, who expects to make any serious cultural compromise with the very different cultural patterns of the immigrants who have entered this country. If there is to be integration it can only be as a result of the voluntary disintegration of the immigrant groups—except in so far as they maintain relatively innocuous and unprovocative sentimental practices, like the Scots in England or many groups in the United States of America, as a commemoration of their origins. But in principle each member of each group, as individuals and no longer as a group, will have to detach themselves from their culture and entrust themselves to ours, and that is a very big demand for us to make. It is not too difficult to appreciate that for a cultural group voluntarily to get rid of itself is a major step for it to take, and one which, in the absence of certain factors, it will not take. To show what I mean, I should like to refer to the United States of America.
The United States is a nation which has been constructed by its immigrants. Great immigrant groups from quite distinct cultural backgrounds met and competed in the United States, and there they compromised and integrated, and in doing so they created a new nation. Although they have had problems in reaching a cultural pattern that unites the nation, and although the persistence of certain European patterns in criminality and political ethics have caused considerable problems, by and large their integration of the European groups has been successful. I suggest that this is so because for the most part the groups knowingly and willingly cut themselves off from the countries they left, because no one group dominated over any other and therefore each knew that they had
1076
to compromise with the other, and perhaps above all because there was no host population with the wish and the tradition and the power to impose its culture on all immigrant groups alike.
Consider by contrast the position of this country. The immigrants into this country have to face an intricate and unyielding host culture, from which they can expect no serious compromises. They are not by any means cut off from their countries of origin: they easily keep in touch with them, and from time to time even give proofs of their emotional involvement in the fortunes of those countries. They can keep alive as something more than a fantasy the alternative that they may return one day to those countries. They come here not to found a new society, nor to abandon their culture, but, I believe, for economic reasons. Their groups are now large enough and strong enough for them to survive intact in our society. In short, I believe they will not integrate, not because of any inadequacy on their part, nor because prejudice makes it impossible for them to integrate, but simply because it was not their intention to integrate and because they do not have to integrate.
I believe that some noble Lords will agree with what I have said, and of those some will believe that in any case integration is not the goal they had in mind. Mr. Roy Jenkins has talked about the ideal of cultural diversity in an atmosphere of tolerance, but I believe that the consequences of no integration are likely to bring extremely serious problems. It is hard to see how the gap between immigrants and the native population will not widen rather than narrow, economically, educationally and politically. In their gravest form these problems lie in the future. One day we shall have to discuss them more fully. I wished only to mention that I believe they exist, and I wished to make it plain that the problem starts from the facts I have enumerated and not, as has so often been maintained, from the point at which prejudice puts in its ugly appearance. If I am correct in saying that the prospects for integration are slender, then in any attempt to treat coloured immigrants as if they were not coloured immigrants the Government have the advantage in idealism, but the opponents of the Bill, in arguing that they are different and should be treated

1077
differently, have the advantage of realism. That presents an intriguing political choice. On the whole, I tend to favour the Government. It seems to me that it will cause less confusion if the reduced number of coloured immigrants are treated like other probationary citizens, as a step towards the improvement of our citizenship laws, rather than as a special category, as a recognition of their separate status in our society. However, the Bill is more remarkable for the problems it evades than for those it deals with. It contains both good and objectionable features. I do not think it is a very important piece of legislation, although the subjects with which it deals are important. Nor do I think it will do any major harm. I shall not oppose it on Second Reading.
7.50 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Reay, will forgive me if I do not follow him in his arguments. I am afraid I have more sympathy with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and other members of the Liberal Party in this House; in fact I have more sympathy for those who are liberal without a capital "L". This is not the first piece of legislation which has its roots in the Conservative Government's Election Manifesto, and I wish I could recommend it on that account. I wonder whether I can apply the adjective patrial " to this Bill and say that I should feel happier about it if one of its ancestors were Lord Windlesham and not the Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, with his usual courtesy and competence, made the Bill sound much better than it is. At this moment I take issue with him about only one point that he made. He said—I believe I am right; I cannot remember his exact words—that the numbers of immigrants who are allowed to enter and the feelings about it must have equal regard, and that the social problems must keep pace with this. I agree with that. But there is nowhere in the world, I believe, where the social progress in the country keeps pace with the economic or the technical, and I may add, too, that the feelings on this particular issue are irrational.
This Bill is based on the myth of uncontrolled immigration; it promises to put an end to any future large-scale immi
1078
gration. The trouble about speaking at this point in the debate is that everyone has taken one's own quotations, and I am going to repeat the one that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made from the Sunday Times. This myth is what the Sunday Times in a leader described as " phantom fears about a non-existent flood ". The result is a Bill which incorporates measures which I believe are unnecessary, or harsh, or both. I am afraid the Bill can only undermine some of the good work which is involved in achieving better community relations. The numbers of immigrants, as has been said so often during this debate, are now so strictly controlled that they should be publicised in order to reassure the public. I will give them once more. Last year there were only 4,000 work vouchers issued, and of those about half were for nurses and doctors. These figures, if they were publicised, really should exorcise the public's fears.
The history of immigration laws in Britain goes back, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, to the unedifying 1914 Aliens Act. Subsequent immigration Acts in 1962, 1968 and 1969, by Labour and Conservative Governments, modified and disinfected the primitive and arbitrary system of control of that Act by introducing appeals procedures, and the 1969 Appeals Act was working pretty well. This Bill, however, extends controls, extends powers and reduces the rights of appeal. It increases the Home Secretary's power of deportation, extending this power to include the immigrants' dependants. As many speakers have said, Mr. Maudling, the Home Secretary, has a liberal reputation; but what happens if we get a really illiberal, harsh Home Secretary? The powers of the police to arrest or search without a warrant on suspicion of being an illegal immigrant are powers which should be reserved for grave crimes or in cases of infringing national security. Otherwise they are open to easy abuse.
Registration does not seem to many of us necessary at this time; but why should it take place at police stations, particularly when the police are overworked and are not keen on the task themselves? Why should it not take place at labour exchanges? No one has mentioned the labour exchange. What is wrong with it? The restrictions on the

1079
kind of job required and place of work puts the immigrant worker in a very weak position vis á vis his employer. The unscrupulous employer could make life unbearably insecure for an immigrant worker. I hope the Government will look at this matter again and try to change it. The prevailing theme is increased insecurity for immigrants, and this prevailing theme permeates the whole Bill. It becomes more and more unattractive to be a coloured immigrant in this country.
Nowhere do we acknowledge that immigrants are here for a change in their lives but also because we need them. I venture to say that if we go into the Common Market, as seems likely, we shall need more immigrants to obtain the economic growth we need to make our financial contribution. In France, immigrants from French overseas territories are welcome. Here Commonwealth citizens will no longer have an automatic right to settle after five years. They have a right to vote, unlike aliens—cold comfort in an unwelcome climate Only patrials, those with some direct, though tenuous, ancestral connection with the United Kingdom will be free from controls. The Commonwealth citizen must apply for citizenship after five years. So we see that existing rights are thus removed. There is one important exception to the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. The Home Secretary has power to deport an immigrant on the ground that he is not conducive to public good ". So the Home Secretary will have power to deport Commonwealth citizens, but not patrials, who are "not conducive to public good".
However, I welcome the statement that the Government have no plans for large-scale repatriation. So we see that some existing rights are removed: the automatic right of a Commonwealth citizen to register as a United Kingdom citizen after five years' residence is removed. Not only that, but if his application is turned down, he has no right of appeal. Altogether, my Lords, I think this is a very sad Bill. I am very tempted to vote against it, although there was only one occasion on which I voted against the Labour Government on the Second Reading of a Bill which had passed the Commons. I feel very strongly about this
1080
matter. I have not yet made up my mind about the Bill, but I shall certainly vote for Lord O'Hagan's Motion.
8.0 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, before making my speech I should like to make a statement in relation to the inquiry I made at the beginning of to-day's proceedings. My inquiry was entirely procedural. I had discussed it with the officers of the House and with Lord O'Hagan and I particularly resented the implication of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I was endeavouring to stifle anyone putting down any Motion on anything at any time. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for answering the question. I would have said so at the time, but I did not want to turn the matter into a debate.
My Lords, in a way, I feel that I should apologise for speaking yet again on this particular subject and this particular aspect of the Bill for something like the tenth time in eight years. However, I think perhaps I need to declare my interest and my patriality or lack of patriality, by explaining that my grandfather was a younger son who went out to New Zealand in the 1880s to a younger son of a previous generation, and who by that time was Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives. He married a New Zealander and my father was born there. The family then moved to Australia where my father married an Australian, and I was born there. In fact, I was born in Australia in the year that the aforementioned grandfather returned to succeed his elder brother and come to your Lordships' House. Some of your Lordships, though not here to-day, may still remember him in the 'thirties. Not for nothing was he known as "Silly-Willy".
After my mother's death I was sent over here at the age of 11—a latter-day "little Lord Fauntleroy"—to be dragged up in the country, and after graduating from its senior university I served as a regular soldier for many years before returning to Australia. This all has a bearing on this business of patriality. I still have a small property in Australia and relations in both Australia and New Zealand, and I think I know how they feel and have felt over the years about the application of these Immigration Acts. I am not alone in this. The noble

1081
Earl, Lord Glasgow, has relations in New Zealand; the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, spent most of his life in Australia, and together with the noble Earl, Lord Ducie, was in the Royal Australian Air Force in the war. Many people know what I am talking about to-day. In another place you will find that the Labour Member for Feltham and the Conservative Member for Maldon were both Australian born.
I maintain that this country has only two 100 per cent. friends in the world—Australia and New Zealand—who over the years, in the counsels of the United Nations and in Commonwealth conferences have consistently backed this country, whether there was a Labour or Conservative Government. Were this country to be attacked to-morrow who, other than those two countries, could you cross your heart and bet would lift a finger to help? Not the Malta of Mintoff, not Pakistan, India, Zambia or Tanzania. Read the journals of those places and you will find what they think of this country.
Ever since the beginning of Australia and New Zealand it has been a traditional custom for the young of those countries to come to this country—" home " they used to call it. At the outset of their careers they came, the rich for holidays and education, the poorer for education and a working holiday; and they returned in their own good time our loyal supporters and wondering how the hell we put up with the climate. One letter I got last year from a young New Zealander reads:
"There was no need for New Zealand to serve in these wars, particularly the last war. Then New Zealand was left exposed to Japan when our army served overseas. My mother lost two brothers and three cousins in the R.A.F. in World War II. This is because New Zealand considers herself British as much as Kent, Surrey or the Isle of Wight. If Mr. Wilson sneezes New Zealand reads about it. The Union Jack flies everywhere in New Zealand and on the Queen's birthday, the Queen Mum's and the Duke's birthdays a 21-gun salute was fired. Why? Because New Zealand is British. At the Olympic Games we played 'God Save the Queen', and also at cinemas and sports meetings. The men who built New Zealand set out to make another England. This they have certainly done. Whereas the Jew heads for Jerusalem, the Moslem for Mecca, the New Zealander heads for London. Are we going to be restricted now? I am 21 years old and not an old and stout fool."
Then, my Lords, going on with what I was saying before reading that letter. this country decided on a series of Immigra-
1082
tion Acts, and instead of basing our treatment on loyalty, friendship and relationship we adopted a somewhat " holier than thou " attitude, bringing in things which to my mind ought to he irrelevant—race, colour and other factors, which denigrated the people I am talking about.
On previous occasions I have quoted from my files some of the more outrageous forms of treatment meted out to these visitors under our various Immigration Acts. I am glad to say that the rather more stupid forms have lessened in number over the last three years; but the basic matter is there. They do not feel, because of what I have said, that there should be these limitations of the historic freedom to come and go as they will. If I may illustrate what I mean by my own experience, the last time I returned from Australia the half-empty plane filled up at Karachi and, when we got to Heathrow, in the Commonwealth passport queue which I was in with half of the people we picked up at Karachi as well as Australians and New Zealanders—and the other queue was also mixed—a young Australian two places behind me looked over at the people streaming through the British passport queue and said quizzically, " I suppose if I were Tariq Ali I would be getting the V.T.P. treatment!" I hope that illustrates the effect.
As an aside, I should like the Government to consider whether it would be possible to abolish this divisive passport queue arrangement as I gather they have now done in America. It makes for better feeling, anyway. I have never thought much of a criteria on which a passport is allocated according to where you were born if you are white, or where it suits some politicians if you are East African. On the first basis, you could call a dog born in a stable a horse, and on the second an Indian an Englishman. Until this inability to call a spade a "bloody shovel", as they say where I come from, my passport was headed "British passport—Australian citizen". Now the "British passport" part has been dropped. Like the law of supply and demand, when everything is given out all over the place it loses its value.
I had a Ghanaian friend staying with me three or four years ago. I came into the room one morning and I was somewhat embarrassed to see him reading the

1083
headlines about the case of Malcolm X. I made some sort of non-committal remark, "How unfortunate!", or something like that, and he smiled at me and said, "You are a funny people. Last Sunday I was listening to these people speaking in Hyde Park, and if one of your colour or race made the sort of speech that I was listening to by my colour and race in Hyde Park in Accra, he would be lynched, his house would be burnt down, and his fellow countrymen would be expelled from the country". I mention this, because the impression that some people are getting is that what is coloured must be right, and what is white must be wrong. That is purely because we have a vociferous sector which insists on these things.
The Times, in a second leader in November, 1967, told our politicians in blunt terms that our Immigration Acts fooled no one, especially the leaders of the coloured Commonwealth. They, the rules, were made to stop further coloured immigration because, number-wise, population-wise, we were full up.The Times said:
" Sooner or later they (the politicians) will have to face the central question: does it make any sense to stop Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians coming freely to this country because there is a colour problem? It would be wiser to reflect that the cause of race relations would be best served by frank speaking."
The advice of The Times was not taken by the last Government. I have a feeling that the present Government are not going to take it either.
We are not getting the stupid cases that we had a few years ago as applied to Australians and New Zealanders, when John Brownlie was put in prison for, I think, 36 days because he had overstayed his permit, or when Wayne Watkins was trapped, question-wise, and forced back on board ship; or when Mr. Ryan, the manager of the State Savings Bank of Victoria, coming for a three-year appointment, had a 12-month-limit stamped on his passport. The people I am worried about are the working holiday crowd. What an insignificant number ever stay on, and how negligible a number when compared with the thousands a year they take from us as permanent citizens of their country! Why not save ourselves a lot of trouble and administrative difficulties by exempting from the operation
1084
of these Acts those countries that take more from us than vice versa? At any rate, that is my first suggestion.
Before I leave that point—that is, the few that have stayed on in this country: the majority cannot take the climate, anyway—just look at what some of those who have remained have done in, and for, this country. Take Australia first. Lord Bruce of Melbourne needs no introduction; or Lord Bailleu, who died the same year, a President of the Federation of British Industries. Still living, there are Sir Brian Windeyer, Professor of Radiology at the University of London; General Sir John Hackett, an ex-C.-in-C. of the British Army of the Rhine and a man whom I shall never forgive for his part in the previous Government's mutilation of the Territorial Army, now principal of King's College, University of London; the Vice-Provost of Worcester College, Oxford, Alan Brown, ex-Scots Guards, ex-Mayor of Oxford. What about the late Lord Florey, Nobel Prize Winner and President of the Royal Society; Sir Lawrence Bragg, an ex-director of the Royal Institution; Sir Harry Massey, Chairman of the British National Committee on Space Research. Air Chief Marshal Sir Wallace Kyle again needs no introduction. Or Sir Kenneth Wheare, the Rector of Exeter College, Oxford, a former Vice-Chancellor and President of the British Academy; Sir Robert Fraser, Director-General, British Independent Television Authority; or Sir Robert Helpmann, who has done so much for ballet; Joan Sutherland, for opera; Sir William McKie, the musician; General Sir Alan Jolly, Quartermaster-General, ex-Commander Far East land forces; Sir Peter Garran, Ambassador to the Netherlands, and many more.
From New Zealand comes a no less impressive list. From the Services, we have Sir Charles Elworthy, Air Marshal Sir Sydney Hughes, Air Marshal Sir Hector Macgregor. In medicine, who can outshine Sir Harold Gillies and Sir Archibald Mclndoe in the field of plastic surgery? Think of Sir Robert Macintosh, of Oxford; Murray Falconer, the neurosurgeon, and many others. In science, perhaps the House has heard of Lord Rutherford. Or Dr. Black, the Director of Royal Armament Research, and Dr. Mitchell, Director of the National

1085
Chemical Laboratory. In engineering, take Sir Hector McNeil, chairman of Babcock and Wilcox; Dr. George Watt, who invented the gas turbine engine and who was formerly a director of Rolls-Royce. In education, we have Professor Aitken, of Edinburgh; Sir Robert Aitken, Chairman of the University Grants Committee; Professor Bennet, Professor of English at Cambridge; Professor Cooper, Dean of Agriculture at Durham; Professor Davis, Professor of English at Oxford, and so on. I could go on, but I hope that I have made the point.
Since 1962 this country has virtually introduced retrospective legislation to cut off these people, our relations, from the Mother Country, from the place they used to call "home". The only fair, logical, self-interest-wise thing to do is to withdraw the application of the Acts to the citizens of Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and the simplest way of doing it would be for the Government to insert a clause in this Bill exempting those countries which take more from this overcrowded island than we take from them. Australia has taken 70,000 a year since the war. I trust that the noble and learned Lord who is to reply will give me some assurance on this point.
Alternatively, if that is impossible, could the Government insert an Amendment to exempt from the Act those Commonwealth countries which accept the Queen as their Queen? These are enumerated in the Written Answer given by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, to a Question of mine. Loyalty would then be rewarded instead of penalised. The Government made a gesture in the right direction with their original patrial clauses, but that was not enough. If your Lordships followed my own case at the beginning of my speech, you would realise that though I would then have been allowed here, my younger children. who were born in Australia. could have been theoretically divorced from the rest of the family. As the Bill stands, and since an Amendment was moved in the other place, I would not be allowed in. Any obvious comments on that I hope your Lordships will keep until later.
My Lords, I beg of the Government to follow one or other of those two courses I have advocated, and I suggest again that the simplest is that of reciprocity: no restrictions, except on criminal grounds,
1086
for those who take more from us than we from them over the years. Alternatively, let them adopt the loyalty test, which would, I admit, exempt some of the West Indian islands; but what is their total population of about 5 million against the deluge of the Indian subcontinent? If the Government will not do anything about this, then some of us will put down the necessary Amendment at Committee stage.
I should like to conclude by quoting—not for the first time, I confess—from a letter I received in 1966 from a Mr. Evison. He wrote:
" As a New Zealander I fought hard for Britain in the last war and lost my brothers, who willingly sacrificed themselves for their Mother Country. I find it most embarrassing now I am in England visiting a sister dying of cancer, that I have to beg the Home Office for an extension of time."
Of course he got his extension. The point I am making is that he should never have been put in that position by these Acts. When your Lordships come to vote on these matters, I should like you to remember another quotation which I have made before, and that is of the inscription on the war memorial in the little village of Cambridge, in New Zealand:
"Tell England, ye that mark this monument.
Faithful to her we died and rest content."
Unless the Government are prepared to right the wrongs done by these Acts to these people since 1962, then my contention is that this country should hang its head in shame.
8.21 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords. the last time I spoke on an Immigration Bill in your Lordships' House was in 1962, when I spoke on the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by the now noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. I did not envisage having to speak again on an Immigration Bill, but having very recently returned with my wife from New Zealand where, as I have already mentioned, we were guests of the Auckland City Council for the centennial celebrations, and having spent a month in Auckland and in various parts of the North Island, I feel it my duty to say a few words about this Bill and to follow some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
In general, this is not a Bill about which anyone can feel completely happy.

1087
At the same time, I take the view that if you do not have a Bill of this kind what do you put in its place? Is the present legislation entirely satisfactory? My own albeit limited knowledge of this subject tells me that it is not. Before turning to Clause 2, which must surely be one of the most controversial clauses, there are one or two points which I should like to make about some other aspects. Clause 4 deals with registration with the police. It is a matter which has given rise to some concern, and I am quite certain that all of your Lordships, as well as Members of another place, have given great thought to it. But I am forced to the conclusion that it is the correct decision, and that, on balance, the police are the right authority with which immigrants should register.
I say that for several reasons. First, it is the police who, for the most part, have to sort out problems; such as where people go to obtain various essential services, to find out where local doctors are and. for problems of that kind. Secondly, almost every village nowadays has a police station or a police house, whereas a Labour Exchange or a National Insurance office may be rather further away. Therefore, on balance, although I completely take the point that in the minds of some there could be a stigma about having to register at a police station, it is best that these people should go to the police who are so extremely helpful and co-operative in this country to all sections of the community, white or coloured.
I should like to put one question to my noble and learned friend who is to reply, and I apologise for the fact that I have not given him notice of it. Is there to be special training for the police who will have to handle these matters? It may well be that certain tact will be needed, and there may be difficult situations. Anybody entering a country for the first time is naturally apprehensive; they do not know the laws or the customs of the country. Therefore, it is essential that the police officer, or anybody else who handles a matter of this kind, should be a person with some experience of human nature. This is an important point to consider although, administratively, it may not always be easy to give effect to it. But I think
1088
that it would help considerably towards good relations between the various communities.
I should also like to ask a question about Clause 30, which deals with mental health. I am a little puzzled by it, because I do not quite know what it means. Does it mean that an immigrant who comes into this country with an existing condition of mental illness will be expatriated, if that is the right word, from this country? Or does it mean that existing Commonwealth citizens with mental illnesses are themselves likely to be repatriated back to their own country? I am not quite sure to whom this clause applies. Also, is the degree of mental illness to be taken into consideration before application is made for an extradition order?
That brings me back to Clause 2. I accept the fact that, unlike the issue of the Common Market, it would be difficult to make a special case for New Zealand here. I do not think one could do that. One must take the Commonwealth as a whole, although I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has said about the part which Australia and New Zealand have played. He reeled off a list of names of Australians and New Zealanders who live in this country and have contributed. I could reel off more names. For example, the present Dean of St. Paul's, the Very Reverend Martin Sullivan, has done an enormous amount of youth work and work for the Church in general. But I do not want to labour the point, because one could also name a number of other nationalities who have contributed.
I am a little worried about paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1), and I wonder whether the period of five years could be decreased to three or four years. Here, again, we have a problem, because it would be difficult to isolate any members from the Commonwealth as a whole. It may be argued by some that constant reference to New Zealand and Australia is idealistic, and perhaps it is. But I had the experience this year of being in Auckland on ANZAC Day and I went to the dawn service. I do not suppose there is any more moving experience than attending that service. I also went to the afternoon service and visited the War Memorial Museum in Auckland on several occasions. One reads the lists

1089
of those who laid down their lives in the two World Wars and one realises that in Crete alone something like 5,000 of their armed forces gave their lives for this country and for the world as a whole. Even though it may be idealistic to mention that in regard to a subject of this kind, one cannot help referring to it. I think the Bill as now drafted gives Australian and New Zealand citizens a rather better deal than previously, but I am still not too happy, as I say, about Clause 2(1)(c), and I should like to see consideration given to decreasing the period of time from five years to, perhaps, three years or four years.
This is a Bill, then, which, whatever its shortcomings may be, at least tackles the subject of immigration, which hitherto has been a very piecemeal affair. At the same time, this is described as a "once-and-for-all" Bill. Therefore it is going to need some fairly close examination in its Committee and remaining stages, because it is a measure that, so far as possible, we have to get right. I am not in a position to argue one way or the other whether immigration into this country is likely to produce greatly increased numbers in the next five or ten years. Anybody who serves, as I do, on the committee of a hospital—and many of your Lordships do—knows the debt we owe to nursing staffs and doctors from the Commonwealth, both white and coloured, and of the splendid work which they carry out. Whether or not this Bill can be to some extent contrived to give special thought to such organisations as the medical profession I do not know, but in the present state of our National Health Service it seems to me that consideration may have to be given to this matter.
Having said that, my Lords, with the reservations I have on Clause 2, and in the hope that the Government will give some consideration to the registration clause, Clause 4, and will make sure that it is carried out by those with some experience of handling people coming into a country for the first time, be they coloured or of any other nationality; and also in the hope that consideration will be given to the clause on mental health, Clause 30, which I think is an important one which has not been properly considered, I think this Bill, taken as a whole, fulfils an important need.
8.34 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who preceded me, asked what we should put in place of this Bill. The answer, my Lords, is "Nothing". This Bill, as so many speakers to-day have agreed, is utterly unnecessary. For what is needed in the way of bringing about numerical restrictions we already have the machinery. But that is not why I am on my feet. It is not merely that it is unnecessary: this Bill is positively abhorrent. Anyone who is concerned with human rights must find it so. It is an elaborate contrivance, fraught with every kind of abuse; and every time someone gets some sort of reassurance it is a non-effective reassurance about an abuse which even noble Lords opposite have seen. In spite of all the "flannel", this Bill embodies in absolutely explicit terms racial discrimination in an Act of Parliament. It corrupts the proud traditions of a country whose tolerance was once a beacon light which shone more brightly than the torch of the American Statue of Liberty. At least we did not have to spell out on a plinth our testament of tolerance, because it was implicit in all our attitudes.
Because we have no such restrictive concepts (although, indeed, over the years, as has been pointed out, in terms of the incomers our tolerance has been assaulted in 1914, 1962 and again in 1968) the Government have been reduced to inventing words like "patrial". I would say to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that this word was not produced by crossword people: it was produced by the people who in fact produce the programme called "Call my Bluff". We were the trustees for the heirs of a great Empire — and I regard that as a very important trusteeship. I, who was anti-Imperial, anti-Colonial and not a flag-waver of the British Empire, regard us, as I hope we all do, as the trustees of the Empire. But we, as trustees, have disowned our stewardship. I say this with bitterness, because my own Party, in government, introduced the Kenya-Asian Bill, and, as many of us warned at the time, opened the way for the kind of measure which we now have before us. So in fact, my Lords, I regard my own Party as an accessory before this lamentable fact.

1091
That Bill was a major crisis in my life, as it was in many people's lives — certainly those in my Party—because it sacrificed a principle to administrative expediency. It was a panic measure at a time when there was no justification for panic. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, "Do not let us play the numbers game ". I wish to goodness my Party had at that moment not played the numbers game. It was a misreading of statistics. It was not a malignant and malevolent misreading of the statistics, as we have had from Enoch Powell; it was naïve—but naïveté was no excuse. Therefore I feel that in this situation I have the right to speak as frankly as everybody has done to-day, and even more so, because I believe that those of us who were emotionally, politically and in every other way involved on that occasion are now confronted with what we foresaw—another Bill which will take it even further.
I am opposed to this Bill per se. Whatever your Lordships' House may do to remove the anomalies, the perversities, the wickedness and, I believe, the inherent evil, as I am sure your Lordships will try to do at the Committee stage, it is the nature of the Bill and the attitudes that it discloses which make it so utterly reprehensible. As a former member of the Community Relations Commission, I agree with Mr. Mark Bonham Carter, the present chairman, that this will certainly adversely affect the establishment of harmonious community relations and will increase the insecurity of the coloured people living here. When I was involved in community relations—and I still am committed to community relations work—we saw how, up against very great difficulty, we were beginning to build up a fabric of understanding between the members of the community, coloured and white. The concessions to Enoch Powell, for example in establishing in legislation the concept of repatriation, will increase the uncertainties. I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, but I can assure him that nothing which your Lordships are going to say will convince anyone in this disturbed situation that this Bill is not part of an elaborate device and a pretty crude device, deriving as it did from its origins in Wolverhampton—the idea of paying
1092
people to go home: paying them to go home to escape from circumstances which in fact this Bill is going to help to create.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but it would be illegal under the Bill to do as he suggests. When he says that nobody is going to be convinced by what I say, does he mean that he is not or they are not going to be convinced beause it is not true or because they are too stupid to understand it?
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, we could have an interesting debate on the levels of stupidity. I will take the noble and learned Lord's ruling on the legal applications of it, but I hope he will go out with a bell-ringer and tell everyone that in fact this does not mean what it appears to everybody to mean.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord would ring the bell instead.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, if I were as convinced as the noble and learned Lord hopes that I am, then I might; but I am not. I am sure that your Lordships in Committee will do something about the deplorable deportation clause provisions. These are not just deportations, these are evictions. We are not merely applying this to people who are qualified for deportation by the fact that they are unacceptable people. We are going to apply this not only by guilt of association but by guilt of affiliation. To me it is an utter affront to common justice where the family of a person convicted of an offence are to be the victims of this guilt by association.
From all the experience that we have gained in community relations we are aware of the delicate relationships between the police and the minorities. If the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, I can say that at least on this matter I am rather well informed. I will instruct myself on the repatriation provisions, but in terms of the relations between the police and the minorities, from the very sensitive and sensible co-operation which the police authorities have been giving and are still giving at top level and in all

1093
our relationships with those who were in the police hierarchy who were concerned with this matter, we were very much reassured. We believed that we were beginning to create an understanding between the police and the minorities. This is not a question of arguing about recriminations against the police or the minorities; this was a basic misunderstanding which had to be broken down. And we were succeeding. Now the police are to have the invidious role of enforcing this legislation and of registration. They are to have the power to arrest a suspect without a warrant, to search houses without a warrant and anyone they suspect of having committed or attempting to commit an offence under Clause 24. This, it is true, applies to every immigrant; but the coloured person is much more likely to be suspect than the white and is more conspicuous than the white, and it only needs one or two innocent people to be so treated to convince the immigrant community that they are being persecuted by the police. I can understand why the Police Federation take such a strong line. It is manifestly so; it cannot be otherwise. The people will get this sense of persecution.
The other point which is manifestly outrageous in the Bill and which was stressed by my noble friend Lord Brockway is the invidious position in which there is going to be indentured, tied, labour. We are having a bit of this in Scotland at the moment, in terms of the Irish potato workers. Your Lordships might be interested to read what is happening there because it is the kind of thing which was familiar on the plantations in America a couple of hundred years ago. In this situation of indentured labour, imagine the precarious position of a person who comes here to find work. He is not likely to find ultimate security in the existing unemployment situation. In the community relations field there is grave misgiving over what is going to happen to the coloured immigrants when we have competition for jobs and when the white workers begin to feel that they are being displaced by coloured workers. This is going to cause a very serious situation, simply because there is this implicit suggestion that you can be fired and then could be deported, or you can be retained and used by an employer to undercut other workers.
1094
I can sympathise with people like the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, who have serious misgivings about Clause 30, which deals with mental patients. Perhaps my noble friend Lady White was right and all we have done—it characterises so much of this Bill—is to produce what we are told is the definitive Bill on this subject; that all we have done is to pick up a lot of the worst of what has gone before. This clause refers to the right of Government to deport compulsorily, presumably in a straitjacket, aliens who are in a mental hospital. I do not want to sound frivolous, but the conditions of this Bill may produce a great deal of mental instability in the communities thus affected.
Not only the Community Relations Board, or the other organisations such as the Social Morality Council, but every kind of responsible body have expressed their concern, and alarm about the provisions of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Janner, who, to his great distress is unable to be present, has asked me to bring to the notice of your Lordships' House the concern of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, expressed at their meeting on April 23 this year. The Board of Deputies held that:
"…many of the Bill's provisions are racially discriminatory, and is of the opinion that it will impede the work of those who, like the Board, are endeavouring to promote good race relationships in this country."
The Board went on to say that while it had critical views on other aspects of the Bill, it particularly wanted to record to the Home Secretary:
"its apprehension as to the creation of a patrial and non-patrial status, the inclusion of the members of an immigrant's family in a deportation order, and the lack of rights of appeal against the deportation order where no such rights are given in the Bill",
and,
"its hopes that Rules 2 and 53 of the draft Immigration Rules by way of Control on Entry will be incorporated in the Act itself."
I recommend your Lordships to look at this and, at the same time, at the rules, and you will see the point that is being made. The Board noted, during the proceedings on the Bill both in Standing Committee and at the Report stage in another place that there have been some minor concessions regarding deportation orders and rights of appeal but it regrets that the draft rules referred to have not been incorporated in the Bill. Certain

1095
assurances were given by the Government during the various Commons debates: for instance, the right of asylum should not be disturbed, and apart from the traditional rules there were international obligations by which the country is bound, but the Home Secretary declined to incorporate the provision in the Act, asserting that under the procedure for implementing the rules, Parliament could, on a "negative motion", deal with any proposed change.
I will not go on, my Lords. I presume that what has been spelled out has been sent to the Home Secretary. All I am endeavouring to do is to emphasise the concern of everyone who is involved in the field of community relations—people of every race, creed and colour—that this Bill contains an iniquity which I hope all your Lordships will recognise. Much will need to be taken out of the Bill during the Committee stage, but I really believe, and I feel very strongly, that the Bill is unnecessary. It should not have come to your Lordships' House and although I normally strictly observe the convention which applies in this House that one does not on Second Reading vote against a Commons Bill, I shall hold myself free to vote against it because it is unnecessary.
8.51 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I wish that it had not fallen to me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. I normally have a great respect for his views, but I have seldom heard a speech in your Lordships' House with which I disagree so profoundly. I do not understand why he should say that noble Lords who sit on the Opposition side of the House are the only people who have the interest of the Commonwealth, and former Empire at heart, and that those of us who sit on this side of the House have contrary views. I do not wish to raise the temperature of the debate, but having listened to the speech of the noble Lord, it is with that feeling that I rise to speak.
I have asked myself, my Lords, what is this Bill about? It is about immigration, but it goes deeper than that. It is about good community relations, which leads one to think about coloured immigrants. I shall not hesitate to speak out about what I think are the problems
1096
which we face in this country in respect of coloured immigrants. It was my hope that at the end of this debate the House would not divide, either on the Second Reading Motion or on the Motion which appears in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. Hitherto noble Lords have, in my view, adopted a fairly constructive and tolerant attitude towards this crucial matter, though they may have been expressing contrary opinions. In this respect I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who has certainly made a contribution to the debates in your Lordships' House concerning immigration and problems arising from colour. I think that the contribution which this country has made to the furtherance of good race relations would be recognised by other countries and I should like to emphasise that at the beginning of what I have to say.
I take exception to only one of the provisions in the Bill—that which requires that in certain circumstances some immigrants must report to the police. This matter has been commented on by other noble Lords during the debate. Criticisms have been made that the provisions in the Bill do nothing to control the number of immigrants coming to this country. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, mentioned that fact, and it has been referred to by other noble Lords. I cannot accept that that is so. Anything which tidies up the existing law on immigration and any attempt to avoid more piecemeal legislation than at present exists, must make control over the number of immigrants more effective and efficient.
The question has been raised whether the controls contained in this Bill will operate harshly against those who come here. I propose now to raise a point which I do not think has yet been made. For Heaven's sake, my Lords, let us admit that, quite irrespective of colour, social problems arise if large numbers of people of different cultures, religions and races are expected to settle down practically overnight alongside the people of this country.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has mentioned my name and is continuing on the topic in connection with which he mentioned me. Can he explain to me which provisions in the Bill will enable

1097
whatever Government are in power to control the numbers of immigrants more effectively than is done already?
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, the general point I was making was that hitherto we have had piecemeal legislation on this subject. If I am wrong about that perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, will correct me. This Bill is an attempt to bring the law on immigration up to date, and I consider that if legislation exists for dealing with the immigrants when they come to this country, it will make for more efficient control. I was talking about people of different cultures, religions and race who may come to this country. I think that the introduction of this Bill is a sensible attempt to deal with the situation. For that reason I cannot agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, although there have been many occasions on which I have agreed with statements and speeches which he has made in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord said that he did not want to make a Party point, and then he stated that the Bill smacked of Powellism. I am sorry that the noble Lord said that. I profoundly disagree with him. I believe that this Bill will help immigrants and that we shall secure better community relations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, would not wish to misinterpret anything I said. I did not say that there was any Powellism about the Bill. I suggested that it had perhaps stemmed from the sort of campaign which took place two or three years ago and which affected both political Parties; and that the Government thought that they would have to do something about it. That is quite different from suggesting that I regarded the Bill as a piece of Powellism.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I know of his great experience overseas and I am sorry that I got it wrong. I accept everything that he says.
I have already dealt with some of the points of difficulty which arise when peoples of different races, religions and customs have to settle down here. I know that certain noble Lords do not agree and maintain that colour itself is the issue. I simply cannot agree with that suggestion. I do not think I should
1098
get a large number of noble Lords to agree with me that that is one of the primary difficulties in good community relations. May I give one example of this. I do not want to talk too much about my experiences after being in Changi Gaol for four years during the last war, but we felt when we went back that one way we could get the races together was through opening our clubs to Chinese, Europeans and Malays and all mixing together. This went on very well for about six months, but at the end of that period the various races much preferred to go back to their own clubs, run their own businesses and associate with their own people, rather than mix with us. I sometimes feel that we white people in this country and the whites in various parts of the world are insufferably conceited in thinking that coloured people want to mix with us. It is not always so.
I have never been among those who make disparaging remarks about overseas people. As I have had overseas experience, I realise that while many of us may in the mass be better qualified academically, many overseas people possess an intelligence which surpasses that of our own. There are some things which we can learn from overseas people. One is the sanctity with which they observe their family life and their utter devotion to their children. This is an example to many people in white communities.
Nevertheless, there is this problem of the number we can absorb over a given length of time. I believe that the desire behind this Bill is to absorb these people and maintain good community relations over a reasonable period of time. Dealing with the problems of the '50s and '60s, which culminated in the restrictions to contain large-scale immigration, on which we clamped down in 1962, I cannot resist the temptation, as a former overseas officer, to refute the allegations bandied about by some speakers, not necessarily in your Lordships' House but in this country, that we administrators were Colonial oppressors. The Commonwealth immigrants who wanted to come here in large numbers at that time would hardly have wanted to come to Britain if they had been badly treated by us. They came for a number of reasons, but I am convinced that one of those was their

1099
belief in British justice. They were also uncertain about how things would turn out for them in their own countries, which about that period we had handed over to them to form their own Governments. I well understand that situation. It makes it all the more important for us to administer this Bill with great humanity and careful thought. I feel that any Government, whichever Party that Government may come from, should sec that the provisions are carried out in this way.
There may be some noble Lords who may wish to move Amendments to the Bill when it is considered in Committee. I myself am not certain about the provisions for the registration of certain classes of immigrants by the police. I will not go into this matter in great detail, because it has been referred to by other speakers, but I know from long experience that if anything is likely to worry a coloured person, it is a policeman coming to his house and asking questions. His first reaction is, "What wrong have I done?" If fear is created in this way, this increases tension, allegations are made against the police, and all this is not in the interests of good community relations. I think there is a danger here and I support those noble Lords who have drawn attention to this provision and I would ask the Government to look carefully at this when the Committee stage is reached.
I am afraid that I disagree with nearly all that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said in his speech until he came to the end, when it seemed to me that he admitted that some control of immigration was necessary. But the noble Lord is not here to comment. That is what I understood him to say, but in any case I will read his speech in Hansard. I believe that the immigrants who are here are interested in curtailing to some extent further immigration into this country, which may disturb the atmosphere which exists at present. I think that if we were to get down basically to the question, this is what a large number of them would say. I hope that we shall not divide, but if we do I shall support the Government on the Second Reading.
9.7 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, having spoken more than once some 20 speakers on, I arrived this afternoon with-
1100
out a prepared speech, believing that I should hear from other speakers everything that I might wish to say. That is what, with perhaps one trivial exception, has come to pass and all I want to do is to comment on those who have spoken before me and in many respects have spoken so well. I was immensely impressed by the magisterial maturity of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I found him so persuasive that I heartily agreed with the most reverend Primate that it was a surprise that he was going to abstain. I, having heard him, am 'certainly going to do nothing of the kind. I shall go into both Division Lobbies, one in support of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, and the other against the Second Reading of the Bill.
It is customary to refer to the speakers who immediately precede one, and as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, declared his great distaste at the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder I am constrained to say that it was the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whom I found the more persuasive; and the more so in that he referred to the 1960 Act which was directly against the Kenya Asians. I was much persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who in many respects did not differ from what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham: that this Bill does not take away many rights, but leaves things much as they are. Again I was astonished that anyone who is so absolutely hostile to anything can be content to sit still and abstain.
To sum up, most speakers have agreed to-day that the immigrant total will not be altered by anything in this Bill; there will be no increase and no reduction. The administrative controls for keeping down the total are already in the hands of the Departments concerned. We therefore have as our main task the treatment of those who are here, and there has been a large consensus of opinion that those who are here, and especially those who are postulate immigrants, will suffer undue harassment for too long a time, and will be too gravely handicapped by the administrative supervision of their long period of probation. If that really is the case, are we not likely to attract low-grade transition labour, what one might call the scum which comes everywhere where conditions are intolerable to most men? That is the kind of danger

1101
that seems to present itself if conditions are made too onerous.
In my view, the problem has nothing particularly to do with the police. Such foreigners as come to me for employment from time to time have always been handled by the police with charm, distinction and efficiency. I have never come across anybody who has objected to their treatment. I rather thought the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, conceded the point against himself when he gave the illustration of some people who had been directed to the police and, having been to the police, assured him that all was well and that they had been shown their way down the street. I cannot support some of the censorious remarks that have been made about the form of control exercised by the police. My experience is that they are entirely humane, efficient, generous and kindly.
I listened with extreme interest to the speech of my fellow Cross-Bencher, the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and I, who am a military man, am aware of those powerful types of affection and loyalty under arms between Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and ourselves. I reflected as the noble Lord spoke: can we make distinctions based on those considerations? I must confess that I am exceedingly doubtful, because less vocal people from other parts have helped us in precisely similar conditions. One noble Lord mentioned the campaign of Lord Napier of Magdala in Abyssinia. Incidentally, I do not suppose that the Emperor Haillé Sellassie would like it to be thought that Abyssinia was part of our Empire. But, that aside, the campaign was mounted from India, elephants and all. and borne on the Indian budget. I rather think that Gladstone's campaign, in which Winston Churchill took part, the River War, the conquest of the Sudan, was carried out by large numbers of Indian troops, and all certainly on the Indian budget.
Others of our Empire—the King's African Rifles, for instance, in their campaign against von Lettow the most gallant of enemy commanders—have made their contribution. Their blood has gone into our Empire, and when we look around, as trustees of the Empire, we cannot look alone at those we love in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. There are others who have shown equal
1102
generosity, as one can see from the way they fought—Africans and Asians on two continents. So I am not sure that we can make distinctions along those lines, although I appreciate the immense difficulties and the immense wish not to discriminate against friends who have helped us in our hour of need. But what can we do? We seem to be faced with very difficult options on these matters.
I sympathise with those who feel that under the present Bill too much power, too little exposed to scrutiny, is placed in the hands of a single man in the Home Office. I do not like it. I do not know whether attention has been drawn—unfortunately I have not been able to listen to every speech—to the loss of rights, if it is a loss of rights, of those whom we have brought, mainly from the West Indies, to this country, during labour troubles, to run our trains and buses; to help in hospitals and so forth. Have they not rights at this moment to bring in their dependants under the age of 18 and their wives, if they have not already done so? Is not the Bill taking away those rights and putting instead a discretion into the hands of the Home Secretary? That I dislike—the downgrading of rights into a discretion—if that is what it is: I am not sure. I should dislike it, and I have no doubt that the immigrants would also.
I was enormously impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Constantine, said in his maiden speech when, after finishing his speech, he folded up his notes and spoke from the heart. He said that we had brought him and his forebears from Africa, removed him from his background and turned him into a black Englishman. They are black Englishmen, and as black Englishmen they should be treated; and in no other way. I am sorry that I feel moved to go into the Lobby against this Bill, but in the name of pro bond publico it is putting a somewhat degrading degree of probation upon future immigrants which they will detest and which will make them feel uncertain and insecure. Nobody has said that better than the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
9.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, the noble Earl has given me a cue for my first word or two by saying that it is in accordance with the conventions of your Lordships' House for a speaker to make some reference to the

1103
speaker who has immediately preceded him. I take up with particular satisfaction this cue that he has offered me because I remember that during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in 1968, with the long marathon Sitting that we had, the noble Lord, myself and one other were, I think, the only three who both spoke and voted against the Bill during the Second Reading and Committee stages. It therefore gives me a certain pain towards the noble Earl to have to disclose to him that I am not going to follow him into the Division Lobby at the end of this debate because I do support this Bill, and I hope that he will forgive me for doing so.
Sydney Smith, some 130 years ago, said these words:
"Every rock in the ocean where a cormorant can perch is occupied by our troops, has a governor, deputy-governor, storekeeper and deputy storekeeper and will soon have an archdeacon and a bishop."
He was not very keen on the Imperial idea and on the amount of money that was being spent on it. He might conceivably have thought, 130 years later when things have changed a good deal, that the Empire had crumbled away, leaving the after-effect that every cormorant, deputy-governor and archdeacon considered that because he was British he had a right to come and live here. And so he was, and so he ought to be. But times have changed, and we have come to the present. At the end of the road, so far, is this Bill, which is a Bill to tidy up the whole legislation. Your Lordships may he glad to know that I do not propose lo go through the whole Bill, touching on police registration and one thing and another, but shall confine myself to Clause 2. I can even go further in the way of pleasing noble Lords by saying that I am going to deliver very much the same speech as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, so if anybody cares to leave the Chamber I shall not be offended.
No matter what kind of Bill we have, we are bound to come to the point of deciding who is to be exempt from immigration control. That produces the word through some stroke of genius on I know not whose part, "patrial". That is perfectly all right; I see nothing wrong in it. But the right of abode is the first thing that must be settled. Instantly we
1104
come to an ancient, quite spectacular and sensational error—I say this with the greatest respect to all concerned, but the fact is that the error is there. Here are some words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, spoken in the proceedings on the Bill in another place:
" So far as I know, it has always been the case that a Commonwealth citizen who was born here was entitled automatically to United Kingdom citizenship…Our citizenship has always been open to the children of a father born here. There has never to this day been any restriction placed upon them."
That was stated in the Standing Committee in another place. Here we are face to face at once with what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has described as the theory that a dog born in a stable is a horse. I am inclined to think he exaggerated slightly, but, at any rate, it means, if it is carried to its logical conclusion, that an old English sheep dog born in China is a Pekingese.
There is a piece of stage dialogue that I remember from many years ago involving a couple of drunks, one of whom I believe was represented by the late Leslie Henson. They were talking about where they had been born. One said: " I was born in Oswaldtwistle." The other said "Really? I was born in hospital". The first drunk said: "Why? Were you ill?" The other replied: "No, I had to meet mother there". There is only one factor in every case which determines where a person is born, and that is where his mother happens to be at the time. A child can be born nowadays, modern travel being what it unfortunately is, in the most unexpected places. It is perfectly possible for a child to be born here because his mother happens to sprain her ankle or to catch the 'flu, and therefore miss the aeroplane that was going to complete her connection in her journey from Paris to New York. That baby automatically becomes an Englishman. She might have been Chinese on the way to Ecquador—who knows? It is as chancy as that.
You can be a British citizen if you happen to be born to Chinese parents from Hong Kong in a British-registered ship, even though neither you nor your parents have ever been within a thousand miles of Europe or have never left Hong Kong: they have not the right to come here. A great many other people who

1105
you might suppose could come here cannot do so. Think of the case of John Smith, of Toronto, who was born Hans Schmidt in an internment camp during the war to German parents. He is an Englishman. This kind of legislation based on place of birth is very largely self-defeating. Not only does it let too many people in, but it keeps too many others out.
Consider the case of two brothers, A and B, both of whom were born in India because their fathers were serving there in the Indian Army. They each had a son, X and Y; they, too, were born in India. For purposes of patriality they have to rely upon the birthplace of their respective fathers—I am speaking about the law as it is now, not as the Bill is going to make it, which will not improve it much. But it turns out that of these two fathers, who were both soldiers in the Indian Army and both Englishmen, one was born in Simla and the other was born at Camberley. So "X" is a foreigner, while his cousin "Y" is one of us. Does that make any sense, my Lords? Absolutely none to me, anyway. I believe that this kind of anomalous inequity is absolutely inevitable so long as we have any kind of legislation based purely on place of birth.
How then do you base it? I think a principle has to be stated to replace this extraordinary one. The principle I suggest is simply this, that British parents, and no one else, can have British children. The question immediately arises: What is British? How do you define that, if you are not allowed to talk about where the person was born? I would suggest that a person is British for the purposes of this Bill if he is a Commonwealth citizen and if one of his parents has at any time had the right of abode that is defined in Clause 1. That will cast the net a great deal too wide; I know that. It will bring us straight back on slightly different terms to where we were before 1962. How then are we to narrow it down again? At this point I narrow the gap between the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and myself, because I suggest that one way of narrowing it—not the only way but one way—is to confine patriality to what used to be the great Dominions, those that remain: Australia. New Zealand and Canada.
1106
There is a feeling abroad, I suppose nobody will deny, that in some quarters the links between us and those countries have become tenuated and worn out. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton. touched on this from one aspect a moment ago. It is said that our old relationship with these countries does not mean so much any more. Well, my Lords, it does mean something to me; it means as much as it ever did. And if your Lordships will bear with me, I will tell you why. If I sound old-fashioned, well so much the worse for fashion. I am afraid I cannot help it.
I go back thirty-one years in history to the fall of France in 1940. After Dunkirk, when the German thunderbolt seemed poised to fall on us, there occurred, as some of your Lordships may remember, a unique phenonemon in Britain: a national sigh of relief. There was nobody left to let us down; we were on our own. It was no whistling in the dark; it was perfectly genuine. We really were relieved because, as we felt, we were alone. Yet Canada, Australia and New Zealand had also declared war upon Germany. Their soldiers had come across the world and were here in England. Everybody knew it. It was said that we were alone. Had we forgotten them? I make a jump in space but not in time—
"LORD WALSTON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? Were there not soldiers and airmen from the Caribbean countries also at that time?
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY:
My Lords, there may have been all kinds of people; dogs, goats, fish and everything else. But I am talking about these particular people. If the noble Lord will allow me to develop my point he will see what I am coming to.
I make a jump in space but not in time to the Fleet Flag Ship of the Mediterranean Fleet. I will now quote from the autobiography of the late Admiral of the Fleet Lord Cunningham of Hyndhope, who was then the Commander-in-Chief. He wrote:
" Graver and graver became the news from France till, on June 24, we heard that she had capitulated to Germany and Italy. The next morning, when we were all feeling rather depressed, I was walking up and down the quarterdeck of the ' Warspite'. I saw an Admiral's barge approaching and went to the

1107
gangway to receive the Vice-Admiral (D), John "Covey. A smiling figure ran up the gangway and greeted me with: ' Now I know we shall win the war, sir. We have no more allies.' Such depression as I had vanished. It was impossible to feel downcast in the face of such optimism."
My Lords, do you suppose that the commander-in-chief and his second in command, who was also Admiral of destroyers, had forgotten that they had also under their command the cruiser Sydney " and a destroyer squadron of the Royal Australian Navy? Certainly not. The truth in both those cases was that in time of danger it had not occurred to us to think of these friends as allies. They were our own people, a part of the undivided "we" who had no allies. Would they have thought that we were taking too much for granted by taking that point of view? I can only answer that question by quoting from the speech made by Mr. Michael Savage, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, broadcasting to his nation the day after the outbreak of war. He said:
" With gratitude for the past and with confidence in the future we range ourselves without fear beside Britain. Where she goes, we go; where she stands, we stand."
Total commitment, unequivocal and unqualified, and honoured to the end. Canada and Australia were the same. Was that all too long ago to be significant to-day? Not for me, my Lords, and I think the point is a little different from that raised by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. This is not a question of standing by us in time of war; what I am thinking of is the automatic feeling that these are our people; we are the same family, which is not only a thing of war but a thing of peace and, I believe, for all time.
That is one possibility, my Lords; the confining of patriality to these countries. It is quite likely not to meet with universal applause. There is another one: I can think of objections to it myself but they are comparatively minor and I am prepared to develop it if necessary in the Committee stage. This is a perfectly serious and not a rhetorical question. Why should there not be a distinction made between countries at large in the Commonwealth and countries that acknowledge the Queen? So far as I know, this has not been debated at any length. In the Committee stage in another place,
1108
speaking on this Motion, the Home Secretary said:
" I do not think that in itself is consonant with the concept of the Commonwealth nowadays, and I do not think that it would work out in practice".
I should like to be told why it would not work out in practice. But nothing else was said; it was a throw-away line. I see no reason to suppose that it would not work out in practice. And why is it not consonant with the concept of the Commonwealth to-day? Which concept is in question here? Is it the concept that we have always had, and some of the other peoples in the Commonwealth, that it was a family of nations, or is it the concept that was evidenced not long ago by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Singapore? They are not quite the same thing and with the second one I confess that I am very much less than totally impressed.
The other idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is that of reciprocity. He has argued that most adequately. I shall say nothing about it, but I suspect that we shall hear more about it later on. There is one other point I should like to touch on because it has come into this debate to-day over and over again. It has come into all the debates on this Bill, and I am perfectly sure that we shall have it until the end. It reached its finest flowering in the speech—any speech, almost—of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I am sorry that he is not in his place, but he can read what I am going to say (if he cares to) to-morrow. He asked the question: how can anyone say that the provisions of this Bill are not racialist? Can anybody answer that question? I am not quoting the noble Lord's precise words, but the answer is that somebody can try to answer the question. To begin with, it depends upon what language you speak, because in ordinary English usage the word "racial" simply refers to race and this gives rise to "racialism" which still merely means discrimination between one race and another, with no overtones to it at all. That is from the Concise Oxford Dictionary. If you look at other dictionaries you will find that it means "encouragement of antagonism between races of men" or "tendency towards racial feeling or antagonism between different races. As for "racialist" and racialistic", no English dictionary acknowledges the existence of the words at all.

1109
In an American dictionary you will find the full definition— undoubtedly this was intended by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway and others; for example, in the Random House Dictionary published in New York. But never mind; when it is used in criticism in this way it is undoubtedly intended to mean discrimination against a race or on behalf of one race against another. The Bill is in that sense racial. This is the contention I am trying to answer. It sets up, therefore, a feeling of antagonism on the part of the British against the non-British.
I see no reason to introduce questions of colour here. Is that the case? When you talk about who you are going to let into your own country it seems to me reasonable enough to distinguish between other races. It would certainly be very difficult to define the British race; but we are fairly clear that it is not the same as the Indian or French or Chinese race. It is distributed about the world, but we have some idea what we mean by "the British race". Why should it be to some extent wrong for a nation to take the further step of making a distinction between their own race and another; to take the further step of looking more affectionately upon their own people, as a man might upon members of his own family, and to look more affectionately on members of his own race than another? If anybody tells me that that is wrong—T have been told so several times this afternoon and I expect to be told so again—I can only reply that such a proceeding is natural, inevitable, universal in all ages and nations, and generally necessary to salvation. If racial discrimination occurs between and against citizens in a single State, such as this or any other, or between one kind of citizen and another, then it does become racialism and that is evil. But that has nothing whatever to do with this matter. There is no connection between that and the attitude that we take to other races in other countries, because there is no implication—and I submit there is no ground for alleging that there is any implication—in this Bill that we look upon other races as in any sense inferior. They are different; that is all; and I find that perfectly reasonable.
I have nothing to say on the rest of the Bill, except that I shall vote for it. We shall have more opportunity to speak later on. I have flown a kite or two,
1110
and I am content to allow them to fly. Perhaps with the help of others, I shall be able to haul them down between now and the Committee. With all its faults (and it has some) I wish the Bill well.
9.38 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I must pick up (if that is the right expression) one or two of the noble Earl's kites. At the beginning of his speech he disposed very effectively of the pretensions of Clause 2; he demolished it in a way which leaves nothing for me to say. It is a question we shall discuss in Committee at some length, but I am glad we shall have his support, at any rate in criticising that particular clause. The middle of his speech I found fascinating, and I agreed with it. I am not prepared to allow the noble Earl to be more of a supporter of the old Empire than I am myself. I cannot see why he should Lind it necessary in this House to make such a song and dance about it. Most of us are very proud of our relationship with the old Empire, Australia, Canada, New Zealand. Is there anybody who is not? I agree with the noble Earl. Quite what it had to do with this particular Bill I am not sure. In any case the noble Earl said nothing to which I can take exception.
When it comes to the question of colour or racialism I think the noble Earl must admit that it is no good saying, "Naturally we like our own people more than other people." This, of course, is true. I remember sitting one day next to a very distinguished American hostess. We were having a black/white argument. She said, "Would you like your daughter to marry a black man?" I said, "No, but I would not like her to marry an American. I would rather she married an Englishman from my own circle." When you have said that you have said nothing. This is fundamental law. I would far rather she married a black, yellow or other coloured man of intelligence than a white man of stupidity. I imagine that the noble Earl would probably agree with me. I do not think he has made a point of any validity at all here. The question we are concerned with is: does this legislation tend towards treating differently people who have a different colour of skin? This is the issue. This problem, the noble Earl, Lord Cork, with

1111
all his fascinating speech, made no contribution to solving. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I found tremendously persuasive, perhaps because he was speaking on my side. I have on other occasions found him less persuasive but it did seem to me a very strong and useful speech on the side of those people, who, like myself, do not like this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, I am always interested to hear. He has lived abroad, he has ruled abroad; he is part of the proudest tradition of this country, and it has gone, and it is interesting to hear his views. We do not often agree but we seldom quarrel.
Having linked up the debate in this way, I should like to use my few minutes (at this time of night one should not take more than a few minutes) in this Second Reading debate, and I stress Second Reading debate, in looking at the Bill as a whole. It seems to me that much the worst thing about this Bill is its very existence. It is not brought forward in response to the pressure of circumstances; it is brought forward in response to an ill-considered Election pledge. There are other things one can say about the clauses within it, but we are going to have, I hope, a long Committee stage when we shall take our time and try to make something of this Bill, if we cannot defeat it. The very conception of bringing forward such a Bill at this time is inexplicable, knowing, as I do know, the very fine record which noble Lords opposite who are supporting the Bill have on race relations. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just come in in time to receive a little bouquet—maybe the last for a bit. I think the noble and learned Lord has been an outstanding example within the Tory Party of somebody whose views on race relations we on this side respect and admire. The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and for the noble Earl the Leader of the House. So I listen with great sympathy to your Lordships who have to get this Bill through, because I know, whatever you may say, that you do not like it.
The decision was taken in 1962 that free and unlimited immigration from the New Commonwealth could not continue. This was an agonising decision, and many people on my side of the House (I was not here) were sadly torn. The late Hugh
1112
Gaitskell made one of the best speeches of his career on this issue, but I believe that to-day he would feel, as we on this side of the House feel, that the thing had to be curbed, that it has been curbed and that the curb has not in itself produced very great hardship. Immigration has been severely curtailed, successfully controlled and, for the last three years, the incoming rate has declined sharply as the dependants of past immigrants are allowed in to join their menfolk and families are united. The figures for incoming dependants are, in 1968, 43,000 odd; in 1969, 29,000 odd; and in 1970, 9,000 odd, which is a very steep decline. The backlog of separated families is nearly wiped out, and the families are united here, which is a fact we can be proud of, and let us not forget it. We have allowed these people to come in. We have allowed the families to join them. They are citizens of this country, and they are as good as you are or I am.
All decent thinking—and in this I include Government thinking—is concentrated on the one problem of assisting the assimilation of these families into our society. I do not think there is any argument that this is the most important thing confronting us at the moment. No one advocates the making of second-class citizens. Nobody denies that there are prejudices and problems to be overcome; and the last Government took, in my opinion, rather halting steps in the right direction. They started with the Race Relations Act; they appointed the Race Relations Board and the Commission, and these are all official efforts to meet the standard which everybody acknowledges and to which even Mr. Enoch Powell pays lip service, that families who are resident citizens of this country should be treated the same in every respect, whatever the colour of their skin. I really believe this to be common ground between all of us. I do not believe anybody differs over it. My quarrel with Mr. Powell—and I do not like to speak ill of a Fellow of Trinity—is that, whatever his motives, his public utterances have done more to make such assimilation difficult than the actions of any other living man. This is a grave responsibility which he will carry to the grave and further, if further there be. To say that you do not intend

1113
consequences which are inevitable is too naï ve a defence for such an acute mind. I find the Government falling into the same evil sequence; bringing in a Bill which expresses worthy intentions and which is already producing results of an utterly opposite kind, which any serious examiner could have foretold, and many did.
The Government's action reminds me of an old story, if I may mention it, which we all heard at our nurse's knee. A very old lady battled against the wind on her way to church, and during the service she prayed with great passion that the wind should change. So it did, and she bad to battle back again. That seems to me to be almost an analogy of what, if we may take the noble Lord's expressions of goodwill seriously—and I do—he is in fact doing. I think one has to be very careful what one prays for. Urged on, I suppose, by a wish to pacify the extremists—at any rate, to some extent urged on by this wish—the Tory Manifesto included a promise to produce legislation in this field, and it is in response to that, and to nothing else, that this Bill is before us to-day. We talk in this fortnight of Wimbledon of "unforced errors"; if ever there was an "unforced error", this Bill is one. It seems to me that it is the most unnecessary elaboration of Parliamentary performance that one could possibly wish for. There is no threat; no build-up; no unforeseen or foreboding situation on the horizon which justifies it at all. Yet noble Lords opposite must know that the effect of this Bill is vastly unsettling to the very people we are hoping and trying to settle.
I asked for your Lordships' agreement, and I think I had it at the beginning, that by far the most important matter in front of us is to settle within this country those people who are stably here. This Bill is working actively against that. If it were making any contribution of any kind to assimilation—which it does not pretend to do—one would feel less bitter. We have none too long. The United States, by making concessions too late to their black citizens, have already passed the point of no return. It seems that nothing they can offer now will be acceptable, and one sees the decades of civil strife before us. The situation is very different here. We have a widely
1114
mixed immigrant population—a tiny one in relation to our total population—most of whom, if they are in work and properly treated, are better off, and know they are better off, than where they came from. It only remains for us to accept them as equal citizens, and we still have time to develop a harmonious society, heavily white dominated, certainly, but happily diversified, with mutual respect between the majority and the various minorities. This is the ideal for which everybody is asking—noble Lords opposite just as much as we are. What we deplore is the action at this moment which is going to put the brakes on the work which is being done and which is beginning to have some effect. And let us not pretend: in the end, this Bill depends on colour discrimination. One cannot prove it by words, but I do not believe that anybody thinks that if all the people we are talking about were white there would be the argument that we are having. I think it is simply a case of burking the issue. I do not believe there is a single man with a coloured skin in this country who is not against the Bill, and I challenge the Government to produce one.
My gloom and misery grows apace when I cast my mind back to Mr. Heath on the steps of 10, Downing Street, promising to unite the nation. Not content with the Industrial Relations Bill, which split it from top to bottom, he has to bring in this useless measure which has already added enormously to the growing suspicion between us and our non-white colleagues. What are the Government playing at? The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, whom we all respect, actually suggested that this Bill clarifies the law. It is, in fact, almost wholly obfuscatory. He and his colleagues speak of its emollient effect on assimilation, but they must know that its effects can only be abrasive. I find it difficult to believe that they think that. But they are men of honour so I assume that they do, and I cannot explain the situation. To me it is dumbfounding.
In the Kenya Asians debate in 1968, we on this side gave a lead. Many noble Lords on this side voted against their Government and a lot of others abstained. The Liberal Party voted against, but their tensions were less acute. I am not going to ask the noble and learned Lord the

1115
Lord Chancellor, or the noble Lord. Lord Windlesham, to vote against their Government—that would be foolish. But I suggest that Peers on the other side who have doubts about the wisdom of pursuing a Bill which is clearly going to make matters more difficult and is clearly not going to make them less difficult in any way. should not support the Bill but should abstain. I feel very strongly about this Bill, and other people feel very strongly. I hope I have not said too much. I know that noble Lords on the other side are as good Christians as I am, many of them better. I feel that they are in a dreadful position and I suggest that they should think very seriously whether, for once, they could use their own individual vote and reject this really very wrong-headed Bill.
9.54 p.m.
LORD GARNER: My Lords, it can scarcely be said that the Bill at present before us has been received with undisguised rapture, either from these Benches or from some other Benches. Therefore I am prepared to say to the Government Front Bench that. I do not share the bitter hostilities that have been shown towards the Bill as a whole, nor do I detect racialism in every subsection of it. But I give that piece of comfort only in order to emphasise that there are many provisions about which I feel deep disquiet. The Bill is, of course, a highly complex one, dealing with very difficult problems of an emotional and controversial character, and it operates against a background of the past. Moreover, not only does it seek to deal with simple questions of entry and immigration, but it touches on the whole question of status and of citizenship. It is precisely on this question of status that there is an extremely tangled background. Indeed, looking back on our past Imperial history with hindsight, it would seem to me now that many things which seemed right at the time—and I accept full responsibility for what was done, because I was fully engaged in them—were in fact mistakes, or at least missed opportunities.
First, until 1948 all persons born anywhere in the Commonwealth were British subjects with equal rights and with free entry guaranteed into this country. There was no distinction between people,
1116
whether they were born in Birmingham, Brisbane or Bermuda; and it was the British Government who positively insisted throughout on the maintenance of the so-called common status. In many ways this was magnificent. It carried on the proud Roman boast, Civis Romanus sum. But with increased mass mobility and the coming, of the aircraft, it began to make less and less sense.
Secondly, when the Canadians adopted their own citizenship after the war, forcing us to follow suit, we established in 1948, for the first time, a separate status, though of course still sharing with all Commonwealth citizens the common status of British subjects. But we established that status with. I think, the somewhat awkward title of "citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies", and this was indeed to have awkward implications for the future. Thirdly, as each dependent territory was accorded independence and received into full membership of the Commonwealth, Britain—and it was Britain again—insisted on the maintenance of the common status, which meant, certainly until the passing of the 1962 Act, unrestricted right of entry into Britain; and this included not only people from those countries owing allegiance to the Throne, but also those from the independent republics. As one can see now, this was perhaps only storing up trouble for the future. It might well have been possible to make different arrangements at that stage on a bilateral basis—a reciprocal basis, satisfactory to both parties; and this point has been touched on by previous speakers in the debate. But the point I want to make is that what might have been possible 20 or 30 years ago would be very much more difficult now, in the light of all that has happened since.
Fourthly, when it became necessary to control the flood of immigrants from the Indian sub-continent and the West Indies, because of this background I have described and because of the natural desire not to show any discrimination, the law was applied equally to citizens from all Commonwealth countries. This artificial, in some ways, egalitarianism — and it is an egalitarianism with which we are familiar sometimes in other spheres—forced each ship to the pace of the slowest vessel in the convoy. Because in fact no one really wished to place restrictions on

1117
Australians coming here to work for two or three years, and certainly I am sure that no one wished to place any obstacle in the way of the noble Lord. Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, coming to these shores. Fifthly, and finally, there were included in those enjoying the common status people in the dependent territories who were citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies but who, as they did not belong to the United Kingdom itself, were brought within the restrictions of the 1962 Act. Later, promises of United Kingdom citizenship were given to those in certain African countries who did not opt for the local citizenship, and the prospect of their coming here was, as we have heard, on many occasions suspended, at least, by the Act of 1968.
I give this history only to explain that our law and our practices on status generally, and to some extent on immigration, were in a state of considerable confusion, and I think that this Bill is in some ways a brave attempt to bring some sense into our affairs, although admittedly it makes no effort whatever to deal fundamentally with the whole question of citizenship. And this also is something that is going to be crucial to us in the months and years that lie ahead in having absolute clarity as to our citizenship arrangements when we consider reciprocal arrangements with countries in the European Community should we be successful in joining it. My objection to one of the features of the present Bill is precisely this attempt to assimilate the immigration procedures of Commonwealth citizens and aliens. I recognise, as was pointed out earlier, that some distinctions in favour of Commonwealth citizens still remain. Perhaps in practice this is no great hardship. No doubt it is an administrative convenience. But there is, as previous speakers have emphasised, something special about Commonwealth relationships. We do not regard Commonwealth citizens as aliens; nor they us. In an emotional if not in a legal sense, I certainly feel at home in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed a good many other Commonwealth countries, and thousands of Commonwealth citizens feel deeply that in coming to these shores they are coming to their own. It will be a sad day if the law proclaims that there is no distinc-
1118
tion between a subject of Her Majesty from overseas and a total stranger from a totally alien land.
I do not want to say very much about patrials. The Bill has at least an assured place in the history of the English language if only because of the coining of that phrase—although the provision is now a good deal restricted from its earlier form. On the whole I welcome its intention, since it was designed no doubt to mitigate the severity of some of the restrictions on entry and to provide some sort of rough justice. It is an ingenious, if somewhat artificial device, but I am bound to confess that when I was in Australia a month or two ago I did not detect very much enthusiasm for it and my impression from many of my Canadian friends is that there is even some hostility in Canada to the proposal, precisely on the grounds that it is divisive as between one Canadian and another on the pure accident of the birthplace of one of the parents.
As I said earlier, I regret that some of the provisions in this Bill on immigration appear to me to be unnecessarily harsh. I welcome some of the changes made during the course of its career in another place. Perhaps in this House in Committee we shall be able to make greater progress. Of course, I recognise that there are great practical problems, but my main concern is the psychological effect on immigrants who are already here. I do not want to say more about that. because we have heard so much about the unsettling effect. I think that their fears may well be mainly due to popular prejudices which the Government, I am quite satisfied, are seeking in the best way possible to overcome. But we have also to accept that there has been very considerable evidence tonight from a number of quarters that considerable anxieties have been created by the Bill and it is most important to nourish the tender plant of good community relations.
We shall have plenty of time to discuss matters of detail later. Most of the things that worry me have already been touched on and I do not propose to make any further reference to them except to illustrate one point, the question of registration with the police. This brings out part of the nub of my own

1119
argument. I have heard it said so frequently—the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said so in his opening speech—that registration with the police has worked perfect1y, well with aliens for a long time past; that it is extremely satisfactory; that there have been no complaints and that there is no reason why it should be not be applied to Commonwealth citizens. I entirely admit the logic of that proposition; but my whole point is that this is not a question of logic but one of psychology. To me it does not seem unnatural that a foreigner, knowing that he is coming to a completely strange land, would accept as perfectly normal that some form of registration with the police was necessary. It is a normal international practice.
I do not believe that the same is true of a great number of Commonwealth citizens at any rate. In the past Commonwealth citizens have been encouraged to come here. They have been told that this is a British country—I do not want to use the word "home". They have always been given the impression that this is a friendly land waiting to receive them. Psychologically, if a Commonweath citizen is told that he must register with the police it would have a very different effect on him than on a foreigner.
In conclusion, my Lords, I wish to commend the Government for their efforts to clear up so many of the uncertainties resulting from anomalies and, perhaps, illusions and contradictions of the past and for providing some basis for a new, comprehensive and realistic law. Of course we all recognise the need for control, and certainly the need for strict measures to deal with abuses which have been discovered in recent years. But at the same time I beg the Government to reflect that any law introduced at this time will mark a turning point in our history and our relations with the Commonwealth. I beg them to make sure that none of the provisions puts the clock hack in relation to our traditions of Commonwealth partnership, or indeed to our far older traditions of tolerance, fair play and humanity.
My Lords, I rather hope that there will be no vote this evening; but if there is, I shall vote in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading on general and
1120
constitutional grounds. I hope, too, that there may be no need for a vote on Lord O'Hagan's Motion; but if there is—I hope this will not sound illogical—I shall vote in favour of the Motion because, although I do not wish to throw out the Bill, I think it important that the Government should realise the need for considerable amendment if it is to be generally acceptable.
10.8 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, the opening speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made me feel that if I were accused of some particularly obnoxious crime I could wish for no better advocate than him to represent me. He said that the Bill was essentially a consolidation measure. He went on to say that it set out to be short, to be practical, to take account of the Commonwealth and to be non-discriminatory. His final remark, with which I was in complete agreement, as indeed I was with all his other remarks that I have quoted, was to the effect that immigration policies must be made to serve race relations. Those are admirable sentiments, and if I could be convinced that this Bill achieved them all I should unwaveringly support it.
Unfortunately, my Lords, it is only on one point that I am moderately convinced that the Bill has succeeded; and that is in being short—for by the standard of the Bills which we have had recently this is a short Bill. I cannot say that it is a practical Bill. I could say categorically, as many other noble Lords have said, that it does not take account, or at any rate sufficient account, of the Commonwealth. While I do not assert that it is in itself discriminatory, there cannot be any doubt, after all that has been said in this debate, that its effect on race relations is nothing short of disastrous. What is more, although it is a consolidation Bill, it is far more than that. If it brought into one Bill all the legislation that has already been made, that would be a simple and sensible matter. But it brings in new points. For instance, it brings in this matter, to which the noble Lord, Lord Garner, and others have referred—reporting to the police. Reporting to the police, and having to carry some identification which marks a man as being entitled to be in this country and in possession of a work

1121
permit, is not very far removed from the pass laws of South Africa. The noble Lord shakes his head, but if he were a coloured immigrant in this country and had to prove to the police who stopped him legally, going about their proper duties, that he was entitled to be in this country by carrying with him some proof, he might agree with me that although it is not identical with the pass laws, it is a very large step towards them.
There is also the unfortunate point—and I am using moderate language about this—of restrictions on workers' bringing in their families. Again this is not far removed from something we all abhor—the principle of indentured labour. People may conic here as workers under certain conditions laid down by us. They may work. but they are not human beings, in the full sense of the word, like the rest of us and are not able to have a normal family life. They can stay or, if they wish, go back home. There is no compulsion on them. But the conditions are not all that different from the conditions of indentured labour in the last century. Then we have repatriation, an entirely new concept—the ostensibly kindly help given by the Government to those who have come here, who feel they do not like our country and want to go home again. I need not add anything to what the most reverend Primate has said on that matter. His analogy was very apt. There is nothing consolidating in this concept and there is nothing consolidating in the patrial clause, about which we have already heard a great deal. So the contention that this is no more than a piece of consolidating legislation cannot be sustained. There are new, important and both obnoxious and dangerous innovations in this legislation.
First let me take, of the two points on which I wish to touch, the effect on the Commonwealth. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, made mention of the Commonwealth and spoke of the feeling of relief in this country when we were on our own after Dunkirk, when there were Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders with us and, because they were not strangers and all part of the same family, we still felt that we were on our own. Of course that is true. But what the noble Earl failed to mention was that we also had with us men from the Caribbean, the West Indies, East Africa
1122
and West Africa and (as the noble Lord reminds me) South Africa, though that does not happen to be a member of the Commonwealth and I am referring to members of the Commonwealth. To emphasise the point I am making. during the Second World War there were fighting in France with us, as part of our Forces, 80,000 black Southern Rhodesians. We forget about them when talking about these things.
There is another point on this aspect of the Commonwealth. The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, said that it was not only in war time that these Commonwealth links were important, and he is absolutely right. But there are Commonwealth links among the black members of the Commonwealth as well as among the white. I remember vividly an occasion in one of the West Indian Islands when I was invited to dinner by the newly elected Government—entirely black. The Chief Minister, as he then was called, was a man who in his younger days had been a violent revolutionary, a trade union leader who used to march through the streets waving the red flag. Half way through this dinner, which was a long one, a member of the group lit a cigarette, whereupon the Chief Minister rapped on the table and said: "Gentlemen, gentlemen, no smoking before the loyal toast. Mr. Speaker, if you please, The Queen." A small incident, my Lords, but it shows that whether it is in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, in a small island of the West Indies or in Africa, we have this feeling of being part of the same Commonwealth, and that is something which to-day has been put under strain for all manner of causes, including the Common Market. which I support, as many of your Lordships do.
Many other things are happening today, and have been happening over the years. which are putting strains on this feeling. Here we have this Bill, which, through its patrial clauses, quite unnecessarily and for no good purpose, whatever—not even to appease the rabble-rousers of the extreme Right, who I know have no influence whatsoever with the Government; it will not appease the Australians and, as we have already heard, it will not make the New Zealanders happy—will strain still further the concept and the reality of Commonwealth.

1123
Let me now come to what I think is the most important danger of this Bill; that is, its effect upon race relations in this country. This danger is something which over the years many of us have recognised, all of us have abhorred and a large number have worked to fight against. But over the last 18 months, in particular, there have been great strains upon those who arc working for the improvement of race relations. For instance, there was the South African cricket tour. I do not want to go into the merits of that tour one way or the other, but the fact that there was a conflict over this made many ordinary people, people who had never before given any thought to this matter, conscious of the problem; it accentuated the tensions and forced people to take up far more extreme views than they would otherwise have done. Before that incident had a chance to die down there was the General Election, and always in General Elections views are polarised, and things are said that people afterwards regret, but whose effect still remains. Again positions were taken up, tensions were increased, and the feeling of insecurity among the coloured immigrants increased still further.
No sooner was the Election over than we had the question of South African arms. That might appear to have nothing whatever to do with race relations, but in the eyes of a large number of coloured immigrants in this country and of coloured members of the Commonwealth this was a conflict between the black and white nations of the world. The South African challenge was regarded by them as such, and the result of the British Government deciding to send arms to South Africa, however limited they might be, made an increasing number of coloured immigrants in this country feel that here is a Government which is on the side of the whites and against the blacks. I am not saying that that is right or that it is logical. As the noble Lord. Lord Gardiner, said, this is not a question of logic, but one of psychology, and we must take into consideration the way people think and feel with their hearts and their guts rather than with their bra ins.
On top of all those things comes this Bill, and one has only to talk to those who are engaged in race relations in any aspect to realise how much harder this
1124
is making their job. Even the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission, doing admirable work, trying hard to do the jobs which have been urged on them by successive Governments who have made money available for them, know perfectly well to-day that they are losing credibility. This Bill is one of the greatest causes of that loss of credibility; and when we are talking about it let us not forget that we are about to be faced with what can almost be called an explosion of school-leavers from immigrant families, of black school-leavers, whether they were born in this country or came in later. My Lords, I ask you just to think for a moment what the effect on these young people is going to be when they leave school. No school-leaver, or very few of them, even in times of full employment, gets exactly the job that he feels is right for him or the one for which he is best fitted. In days like these, with relatively high unemployment, the chances of getting the right job arc even less. These school-leavers, when they do not get what they feel to be the right job, will not blame it upon themselves because they are not capable of doing a better job; they will not blame the Government for policies which may have led to high unemployment; but they will put the blame on the fact that they are black and the bosses are white—and what better recruits could one have for Black Power and violence in the years ahead?
It is relatively rare for any Government to have the chance of doing something which really affects the course of events. Usually events make a course inevitable, and freedom of choice is very limited indeed, but to-day we do have the chance of taking a step, or refusing to take it, which will have appalling consequences if we make the wrong decision, not to ourselves but to all our children. The guilty men of 1939 were not those who were in power in 1939 but those who had been in power in the late 'twenties and early 'thirties, who took the steps—or failed to take them—which made Hitler's war inevitable. It would be wrong to blame the men of 1939. It would be wrong to blame the men who will be in power in 1985 for the racial conflicts with which this country will be confronted, for the blame rests with those who, however unwittingly, have passed

1125
legislation of this sort which makes that type of conflict inevitable. It is rare, I know, for this House to refuse to pass a Bill which has come from another place, but there are times when precedent and tradition should be put to one side because of the importance of the occasion, not to ourselves but to future generations. I believe that this is one of those occasions because this Bill, if it becomes law, will create such trouble for the future that few of us could look on it with equanimity if we could recognise what was to come.
10.24 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, my contribution at the end of this long debate will be very brief. We are concerned with community relations and I think it is important that we should agree to give one another the credit, whatever our attitude to the Bill may be, of being motivated by such concern. The crucial question appears to me to be whether or not this Bill, with further Amendments, will benefit community relations and help to promote the integration into one harmonious community of all who live and work in this country.
I readily admit there are many aspects of this Bill which have been justifiably criticised. Although the Bill has been considerably improved by reason of Amendments in another place, grounds for serious anxiety still remain. Nevertheless, it appears to me that the great merit of this Bill is that it represents a genuine and sincere attempt to stabilise the confused situation created by existing piecemeal legislation, and so to restore confidence and remove fears. We all recognise that there are fears. On the one hand, there are fears of the resident immigration population, fears of discrimination in jobs, schools, housing; fears arising from uncertainty about the future. This Bill, we are assured—and I do not doubt it—makes it quite clear that those who have now settled in our midst, the immigrants who are settled among us, are accepted as full members of our community, and there is no question whatever of their rights being taken. from them.
On the other side, there are fears which we cannot ignore: the fears of the indigenous population, especially in those areas where a rapid arrival of a very considerable number of immigrants has so quickly and radically transformed the
1126
whole pattern of life in the community. One can well understand how in such areas there is considerable anxiety about the possibility of further large-scale immigration. We may believe, and rightly so, that those anxieties and fears are groundless, but they are very real. This Bill, by seeking to provide a comprehensive plan for controlling immigration in the future, should do much to allay these fears and anxieties, groundless as they may be.
I have spoken of fear. The Minister of State who moved the Third Reading of the Bill in another place, pointed out, quite rightly, that fear is the great enemy of good community relations. Things have been said in the debates in another place, in this House to-day, and in discussions outside Parliament, that can only serve to foment the fears that I and others have been speaking about, by exaggerating the harm that, so it is claimed, rightly or wrongly, may be done by the Bill. For example, I think of the charge that this Bill is a racist Bill. I cannot believe that this charge is justified. Surely, as the Home Secretary pointed out in another place, it is turning the whole argument on racial discrimination upside down to say that we cannot accord a special position to people without a parental connection with this country. Every other country in the world does this.
To take one other example of the fomenting of fear, I refer to the charge that this Bill is likely to encourage harassment by the police. I am not here discussing registration. This does serious injustice to our splendid police force, and for that reason I deeply regret such a suggestion. To mention this possibility can only serve to foment fear and create anxiety upon the part of immigrants, when all of us, whatever our attitude to the Bill, ought to be doing our utmost to foster the spirit of confidence and sense of security on the part of immigrants.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the right reverend Prelate a question, if he will forgive me?
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER:
May I just finish? Emotional and emotive reactions to this Bill can only, in my judgment, do a grave disservice to the cause we all have at heart: the cause of good community relations.
LORD BYERS: My Lords—
NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: May I just finish? My Lords, it is my hope that this Bill, given a Second Reading, will be so amended—Amendments are very necessary—that it may provide a solid foundation for the building up of harmonious relations between citizens of this country and all who come and live in our midst.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate finishes his speech, may I ask him what sense of security an immigrant who has to work for an employer for one year is likely to have?
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I add a question?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
TIIE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, may I just say that it is my hope that there will be an Amendment along those lines.
10.31 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, 18 months ago the noble Lord, Lord Walston, introduced a debate on race relations, and I had the privilege of following him. We both made lengthy speeches, and though we may not have entirely agreed with one another, I think we both accepted one another's sincerity. I have sat through practically the whole of this debate, except for short absences for meals, and I confess that I have had growing difficulty in refraining from intervening. It seems to me that a number of the speeches that have been made were exposed to the same criticism which the right reverend Prelate has just expressed. I do not believe that race relations can ever be improved by anybody who speaks in an unbalanced way and fails to give both sides of the question to those who perhaps are not in so good a position as the speaker to understand all that is involved.
I deeply respect the sincerity with which a number of noble Lords have spoken against the Bill—the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Hunt, and others. I think that they are wrong, but in any criticisms that I express about prejudice or unbalance I am certainly not referring to them. But, as I shall seek to show in my speech, there have been remarks made and interpretations
1128
of this Bill publicised which, to my mind, cannot do any good whatever to race relations because they are not rightly related to the terms of the Bill. And in this criticism, I am sorry to say, I have to include a statement put out by the British Council of Churches, which seemed to me to be full of bias and in that respect unchristian. If noble Lords wish me to justify that statement, let me read one sentence from it, in which it said:
" In future, Commonwealth immigrants will be able to bring in their wives and children only if they are able and willing to support and accommodate them without recourse to public funds. We find this provision unsatisfactory and undesirable."
They do not seem to have heard of one's duty to one's neighbour, and particularly one's duty to one's family.
One of the charges brought in that document against the Bill is that it is unnecessary. Another, repeated frequently in this debate, is that it will lead to instability. My Lords, legislation is necessary. It has been recognised by both the principal Parties as necessary. At the moment, immigration control is exercised under temporary legislation: an Act of 1919 for aliens, and an Act of 1962 for Commonwealth citizens. Both of them have to be renewed from year to year; they have no permanence. Moreover, the two Acts operate to bring it about that our systems of control for foreigners and for Commonwealth citizens are entirely different. The two are quite unrelated to one another, and nobody starting afresh and trying to create satisfactory long-term machinery for the control of immigration would dream of maintaining two wholly separate and disconnected systems.
That is why this Bill is necessary, and that is why it seeks to create a new system of control which will be permanent and which will be considerably simpler than the very complex arrangements at present. With the greatest respect to the most reverend Primate,I was surprised that he suggested that the Government had no mandate for this Bill. I can only think that he had not read the Election programme or the speeches that were made before the Election, indicating what a Conservative Government would do. As for the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who I think suggested that this was an ill-considered

1129
Election pledge, it has been Conservative policy since at least 1966, and if I may humbly say so, I had been advocating action of this kind since before that time. When I was Home Secretary I became very much aware of the unsatisfactoriness of the two separate systems of control. It appeared to me that so far as aliens were concerned it was rather a hand-to-mouth affair to carry on year by year an Act of 1919. So far as Commonwealth citizens were concerned it was already clear to me that there were flaws in the 1962 Act. I am quite sure that any responsible Government at this stage had a duty to prepare new legislation.
Now as to this charge of creating instability. A good deal has been said in the debate to-day about the deportation power and the anxiety that this will cause to all kinds of Commonwealth immigrants who are already here. Will it? One of the provisions is that the Home Secretary can sign a deportation order on a Commonwealth citizen because his presence is deemed not to be conducive to the public good. Home Secretaries of all Parties have had that power in respect of aliens, and all from time to time have had to use it. Anybody who thinks that it will be used frequently against Commonwealth citizens had better look up the figures as to the number of times it has been used against aliens. They are minimal. But certainly it was an anxiety to me that there was no similar power in the case of Commonwealth citizens.
Let me give your Lordships two specific cases which I remember, where I had to use this power in the case of foreigners. One was a man who got into this country and who was a drug addict. He had no claim on this country, and drug addicts do not only harm themselves; they are centres of infection, and I saw no reason why this person should remain here as a centre of infection and why we should continue to give him hospitality. There was little criticism raised when I sent him away, but had he been a Commonwealth citizen—had he been an Australian or a Canadian or a Nigerian—nothing could have been done. Under this Bill there will be power.
Let me take a second example, which may be within the recollection of some of your Lordships. A peculiarly unpleasant character slipped into this country in 1962; an American Nazi named
1130
Rockwell, an admirer of Hitler. It did not seem to me that this was the kind of person we should welcome. There would have been no power to remove him had he been a Commonwealth citizen. He had not committed a crime. He certainly allied himself straight away with some of these nauseous little neo-Fascist bodies in this country that caused so much trouble. But had he been a Commonwealth citizen nothing could have got rid of him unless he had committed a crime and qualified for a deportation recommendation by the magistrates. Fortunately for this country he was not a Commonwealth citizen, and fortunately for this country there was a power of deportation against aliens. He went, and went quickly, and I cannot remember anything but praise for me, both in Parliament and from the Press and the public, for acting in this matter.
Do noble Lords seriously believe that the fact that Home Secretaries have been able to get rid of characters like that when they were aliens need cause anxiety to the million and more Commonwealth citizens who are here already. in case quite different tests are used against them? I can assure your Lordships that no Home Secretary would deport a man, Commonwealth citizen or alien, on the ground that his presence was not conducive to the public good, except after the most careful consideration and absolute certainty on his part that he was doing right.
As to the deportation powers against Commonwealth citizens where members of the family are concerned, well, I had not thought of this as a possible legislative power to take, I must confess, but I was very much aware of a problem; and those noble Lords who criticise the Government for putting in this power will, I hope, decide what the better solution is. It seemed to me very unsatisfactory, when a Commonwealth citizen was recommended for deportation and the Home Secretary thought he was worthy of deportation, that it was only the man himself who could under the law be sent away, and he might leave his wife and children here with no one to look after them, splitting up the family irrevocably. That is the problem. There may be a better solution to it than the one produced in the Bill, but it is really incumbent upon your

1131
Lordships, if you criticise this solution, to put forward a better one of your own.
Then another alleged cause of instabality is that the Commonwealth citizen now, after five years, will not be able to claim registration of citizenship as of right. An alien, of course, cannot do that. An alien has to be here five years and has to satisfy the authorities that he has shown himself a good citizen. I confess it gave me anxiety, when I came across some of these cases of Commonwealth citizens who had not lived up to the standard of good citizenship in this country, that nevertheless under the law as it stood the authorities were bound to grant them registration as citizens of this country. If they committed a crime that brought forward a deportation recommendation, they could be deported. But there are a good many people who do not do that, but who show by their behaviour that they do not deserve the privilege of British citizenship.
It is said that there will be instability because we are adopting the system of admission for limited periods. But I would remind your Lordships that the Bill also gives power to admit anybody for an unlimited time if that is thought right. A number of speeches which have been made to-day seem to me to show unawareness of the way the situation has changed since 1962. In 1962 what was needed was legislation to control numbers. It is now accepted by all political Parties, so far as I am aware, that there should be no more large-scale immigration into this country from the Commonwealth. Certainly there appears to be no difference of opinion between the Front Benches on that score. Therefore the kind of future immigration which we have to consider is highly selective—selected workers, because the man or woman concerned has certain qualifications or is needed to fill a certain post. If that is so, we ought to arrange our immigration machinery so that it will satisfy that test and will not allow someone to come in in order to take a job and yet within a few weeks leave that job and go into the general labour market at perhaps a much higher wage. It seems to me that this is one of the valid reasons why the Government propose to change the system at this stage.
1132
I listened with great care to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White. She seemed to me to be under the impression that we still ought to apply the same tests, we still ought to be considering admitting people for general settlement in this country. That is not so. Indeed, I do not think any political Party now would agree that there was a case for admission for general settlement into those parts of the country which already have a very large immigrant population. My noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury in his maiden speech established a point which I think nobody else made: it was that this new system of control might lead to dispersion of the immigrant population, which again is accepted by all Parties as a desirable development but which at present there is no power to bring about. I think the new system will be valuable in applying the kind of machinery that is needed for this new situation.
I cannot go as far as the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Coventry, the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and others who said that the mere existence of this machinery was going to frighten immigrants and make them feel that they were no more than migrant labour. We have numbers of Spanish nurses in this country. Are we going to disparage them by dismissing them as migrant labour? The less we use pejorative terms of that kind the better. We need to reduce the emotion, not to add to it. I really cannot see why a system which has worked with commendable smoothness in the case of foreigners over a large number of years should be condemned in advance as absolutely inapplicable in the case of Commonwealth citizens. In saying that, I take the point of the noble Lord. Lord Garner, that there is psychology in this as well as logic. I think the point about registration with the police is one of the most difficult in the Bill on psychological grounds, and if there is a valid alternative nobody would be more pleased than I. I have not yet heard any that would work, but it would certainly ease matters somewhat if one could be discovered.
My Lords, there has been criticism of the word "patrial". My noble friend Lord Cork said that the quirks of citizenship sometimes are quite extraordinary, but I venture to submit that any of us

1133
in this House, if we had children born and brought up abroad, would be inclined to think of them as having a stronger right of abode in this country than those who have no personal connection with this country ever before. There may be no logic in it, but I am speaking of the psychology of it. Your Lordships may laugh at the word "patrial", but I am sure our law ought to recognise the psychological feeling which I have just described.
As to Clause 29, into which controversy has been introduced, again it seemed to me, from my experience in office, that one came across immigrants who realised that they had made a mistake in coming to this country and who wanted to get away but had not been able to save enough money for the fare home. All I could say to them at that time was, "When you are absolutely destitute and have no resources left at all, the National Assistance Board"—as it was then called—" may be able to help you to go home". But I cannot believe it was a contribution to race relations to handle them in that way. The noble Lord. Lord Walston, has spoken about the "ostensibly kindly help" offered by Clause 29. That is just the kind of prejudiced phrase that I object to in the discussion of this Bill. Here, in the case I have been describing, is a genuine and authentic need, and it is unhelpful and certainly not conducive to good race relations to breathe into it that sort of prejudice.
I have spoken too long, but I cannot help saying that this debate has time after time carried me back to the long and bitter debates on what became the 1962 Act. That Bill was opposed, I know, with intense sincerity, by the Labour and Liberal Parties. It was opposed on grounds of fears which seemed to me at the time to have very thin foundations. It has so proved, and I believe history will be repeated.
10.50 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, it would be wrong, and also, I suspect, very unwise of me to detain the House at this late hour for more than perhaps two or three minutes, when I am to he followed by the two noble and learned Lords who will be winding up the debate. I shall not attempt to traverse the ground which has been covered during this debate. I
1134
should like to go back to the very beginning and, just for a few moments, to examine the basis upon which this Bill was commended to us by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and by other speakers since, and indeed the way it was commended just now by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester.
The way in which the Government have put the matter is this—this is what you might call the philosophy behind the Bill. They are saying that this is a deliberate attempt to introduce harmony into community relations in this country, and that in order to do that two things are essential. The first is that you have to allay the fears and sense of insecurity among the immigrant population who arc already here. You have to eliminate any possibility that there may be in this country first-class and second-class citizens. You have to allay those fears first of all; then you have to turn to the indigenous population and allay their fears, too.
What fear among the indigenous population has to be allayed? We had from the Home Secretary on Second Reading of this Bill in the other place, we had to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and we had from the right reverend Prelate that the fear that we have to allay is of further substantial coloured immigration into this country. The right reverend Prelate, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham (if I remember him correctly), said that this fear may be groundless, but nevertheless it is there and we have to recognise it. But there is no possible risk of any further substantial coloured immigration into this country because the Government have, and they know they have, all the power they need. By withholding work permits, they have all the power they need to control immigration within whatever limits they like to set forth. They know that to be true.
Of course in the last two years, as we have been told, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of Commonwealth immigrants who have been admitted to this country, simply because the Government have been making use of this machinery. Why, then, is this a fear that has to be allayed? If it is a baseless fear, if it is pure ignorance, is not the right course for the Government

1135
to expose the baselessness of the fear rather than to pander to it? That is what they are doing. In order to pander to this baseless fear they have to create a condition of grave insecurity for all the newcomers from Commonwealth countries who will come here after the passage of this Bill. These people are going to live here for one, two, three, four or five years in a precarious condition of sustained anxiety and uncertainty.
I do not know how it is that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, does not understand this. When we were talking on this side of the House about this state of uncertainty in which the newcomers are going to find themselves, we were not talking about deportation or anything like that; we were talking about how these people, when they come in with a work permit, will be allowed to stay in this country and work for one particular employer, and that they will be allowed in, in the first place, for a maximum period of 12 months which can thereafter be extended; but if they should lose their employment with that single employer, whether through redundancy or because the employer takes a dislike to them, they are at risk of being shipped back to the country from which they came. That is the state of insecurity. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, dealt with this at the very beginning of the debate, and explained better than I could how hopelessly insecure people in that condition must be, especially when they cannot bring their dependants and live with them here. That is the price which is being paid under this Bill to allay the baseless fears of the most ignorant section of the indigenous population.
The second ground on which this Bill is presented to us is this. It is said that we are at last introducing some order and uniformity into our immigration laws and, in particular, that we are putting Commonwealth citizens upon the same level and basis as the alien. There are two points to be made about that. The first is that, instead of raising the status of the alien to the former level of the Commonwealth citizen, we are going to degrade the Commonwealth citizen to the conditions and status of the alien. I think it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor who was quoted by an earlier speaker as having said that our
1136
alien legislation is among the most illiberal in the world. What we are doing is degrading the Commonwealth immigrant to the level and conditions which prevail for the alien. But there is a basic difference between the way in which we ought to treat the Commonwealth immigrant and the alien, because the Commonwealth immigrant is coming into this country in almost every case with the intention of settling here if he can. But the great majority of aliens are coming into the country only temporarily to take up some temporary job, and the greater number have no intention of trying to settle here permanently. Therefore, I suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to have different standards for the Commonwealth immigrant and the alien.
Let me finish by saying this. I have been reminded, as I have no doubt have many of your Lordships, of the debate on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. and there are some unpleasant similarities. One of the chief similarities is that on that occasion it was legislation which was instigated and inspired by fear. It was inspired by a panic fear which ran through the country and was shared not only by the then Government, but by the greater part of the Tory Party. To-day we are considering a Bill which is again dictated by surrender to an empty and baseless fear, and that appears to me to be the rot at the heart of the Bill. It is because of that that I think the Bill is incurable. Naturally enough, if it gets to the Committee stage we shall do all we can to mitigate the effects of it, but, in my view, because it is based upon a false premise and a false assumption there is a root evil in this Bill which cannot be eradicated in the course of amendment in Committee. Therefore, I hope that we on these Benches will go into the Division Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill, because if we take the view—as I do—that the Bill is incurable and evil and will have the reverse effect to what the Government intend, then the only logical and honest course is to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading.
But may I add one word about the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan? I think the noble Lord has made a very valuable contribution in putting his Motion forward, because there may be Members of this House who share

1137
our anxieties about this Bill, or who indeed have anxieties of their own, which they might feel unable to express if there was not a Division here to-night other than a Division upon the Second Reading. I quite appreciate the attitude of those people who say, "No, we do not think it right to vote against the general principle of the Bill on Second Reading". I appreciate that attitude, and I understand it. But what the noble Lord Lord O'Hagan, has done by putting his Motion forward is to enable all those who share his anxieties to express those anxieties without defeating the Bill on Second Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, when making that remarkable speech of his, said that ht wondered whether, even now, it was too late to hope that the Government might reconsider this Bill and take it away and try to produce something better. I suppose it is an idle hope; but it might be—it might just be —that if the Motion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, attracted sufficient support from all parts of the House here to-night, that would have some bearing and influence upon the future course of this Bill and upon the attitude of the Government towards it. If all those Members who feel these anxieties were to join with us in supporting Lord O'Hagan's Motion. I think we might indeed, if not get this Bill withdrawn, at least be heard with a very much more sympathetic ear later on, when we get to the Committee stage.
11.2 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, we have had a long evening but by no means too long in view of the importance of the Bill. During the course of the speeches we have had a maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, and I hope that we shall hear from him again. It was perhaps the least uncontroversial maiden speech that I have ever heard, but it was in fact helpful because I think it was some two hours after the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, sat down before we heard, in his speech, anyone saying anything in support of the Bill.
My Lords, I shall not of course attempt to reply to the speeches which have been made. My only function, as I conceive it to be, is to summarise shortly the view of the Opposition. It was a painful matter to me in 1968 when I had to move
1138
the Second Reading of our Immigration Bill. The situation then was, as everybody knows, that there was a serious conflict of race relations in this country which was continuing to mount. A million or so people had a legal right to come to this country the next day and we 'were faced with the possibility, if I remember rightly, of something like 100,000 coming from East Africa. It seemed to my colleagues and to me that we must stop this happening, that we must take a firm control of immigration, and that even if it meant (which we all much regretted) taking away existing rights, we really were not in a position as a country in which we could go on any longer with 1 million or 2 million people having a legal right to arrive the next day and to say, "Build us houses, build us schools, build us hospitals, provide us with social welfare".
It was not because we wished to take away anyone's legal rights, or would have done so if we felt we could have helped it. It was not, in reply to what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, done at all in a panic, but only after deep consideration. But what we did in so doing, in subsequently reducing the numbers of work vouchers, in providing for the first time a right of appeal in immigration cases and in providing the Race Relations Board and a great deal of race relations conciliation, has perhaps shown itself to-day, when more than one noble Lord who works in the field of race relations has told us how much better race relations are to-day than they were then, even though we have unemployed mounting up to 800,000.
No one would to-day have complained of a Bill tidying up a temporary war-time Act or modernising it. When people say that the Bill is unnecessary, what they have in mind is this. As your Lordships know, apart from dependants the number of vouchers now is about 8,000 of which only about 4,000 are taken up. The majority of them are doctors, dentists, nurses and professional people whose skills we badly need. Then we are left with about 1,700 semi-skilled and unskilled artisans. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, is quite right in saying that nobody is in favour of further large-scale permanent immigration. But when you go to the country and say, "We will ensure that there will be no further large-scale permanent immigration",

1139
people think that there must be another Party who is in favour of it. I am not referring merely to Mr. Powell; but one heard a lot of this in the Election. And people think that it is as the result of this pledge that this Bill is being introduced. One or two noble Lords were clearly under the impression that this was a Bill which would give this Government power completely to control numbers. They have that already. They have it under the 1968 Act. There is nothing whatever in this Bill to give the Government any power to control numbers; because they do not need it. They have it under the 1968 Act. That is what people mean when they describe this Bill as unnecessary.
Secondly, they say that it is harmful. I will, however, express no view on that, for I have not worked in the field of race relations. But the House will have observed that so far as I know, everybody in race relations, the Churches, Mr. Bonham Carter, the Race Relations conciliation people, the police, are all strongly of the opinion that the Bill itself, and even the discussions on it, will do grave harm to race relations in this country. I suppose a third general objection to the Bill is the degree to which instead of our immigration law being on the Statute Book such a great deal of it now is going to be in Rules over which Parliament will have no effective or detailed control.
I am sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has much to reply to. I do not intend to detain him. I will merely mention what I suppose are the next half-dozen points on which people feel most strongly. First, the patrials. I will not take up time with that, although I cannot resist saying how much I regret the picking out of illegitimate children to be discriminated against again. I had thought that we were tending to get rid of that. Secondly, the one-year work permits which a great many people treat as likely to result in the sort of indentured labour of which I have had some experience in South Africa. Thirdly, the point about which I personally feel strongest, that this Bill deprives the immigrants of the legal statutory right which they have now to have their wives and children with them. I know that we are told that it will be in Rules. So long as Mr. Maudling is Home Sec-
1140
retary, he is going to let the wives and children come—as long as the man has not fallen out of work. But what is in Rules which can be made by one Home Secretary can be altered by another. Nothing can alter the fact that this Bill takes away what is now the statutory right of a man to have his wife and children with him. I certainly would never have agreed to anything else myself. Not only do I think it ethically wrong to separate families, but I think it is the height of social folly to let a lot of married men come here without their wives, for obvious reasons. Fourthly, the right to register is taken away from non-patrials. By that I mean the right to register as citizens at the end of five years. Fifthly, there is registration and the police.
My Lords, a good deal has been said about this already. I think there is some misconception, for this reason: that on both sides the subject is treated as if the immigrant would, first of all, have to go to a police station and, standing between someone who was being interrogated and somebody else who was being arrested, he would try to register. On the other side it is said, "What better entrée to British life could there be than for him to see one of our kindly police?" It appears not to be appreciated by either side, if I am right, that the majority of aliens register at a central office in London, and there is not a policeman in the building. Registration is a clerical function and the staff are all clerks. The police are in charge but you would not see a policeman. Outside London I suppose the situation might be different, but we have not yet had any clear indication of exactly what is to happen if these people register. When one reads of a member of the Monday Club saying, "I hope also that they are going to be fingerprinted" one may be forgiven for wanting to know in some detail about what is going to happen.
Then, sixthly, there is the whole question of deportation, particularly of families, and again, no doubt, the question of representation, and so forth. I am hoping that when any question of representation arises I may get some sympathy from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I have never been able to understand what harm it does for people to be represented. There are the questions of arrest

1141
without warrant for failure to observe the time limit or other conditions of entry. I do not think it has been entirely appreciated that if you have registration—. I have yet to hear any good reason why we need registration at all—and people have to possess permits, the man who has settled here and who has been living here for years, who is a citizen and can no longer be deported, is the sort of man who will be asked in the street, "Are you registered?" because he is coloured. The coloured people are those who will be registered, and many people who are here by right will not have any papers on them.
There is, my Lords, the question of assistance to return, about which obviously there is some disquiet; and there is the question of mental patients. If I may, I would raise a point which has not been raised before. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether I am right in thinking that to a large extent this Bill will have to be torn up if, as I personally hope, we go into the European Community. When I say "torn up", as I understand it so much here is in the Rules and not in the Bill that probably it would mean an alteration to the Rules. Am I right in thinking that it would cut right across what is being said in the Bill and the Rules; that under the E.E.C. Articles—if I understand them rightly—immigrants are entitled to come for a minimum of five years with a right to bring children of up to 21 with them? I should like to ask whether that is so. And can the noble and learned Lord give us any idea of the position of the associated States? If one takes the countries already associated, as I think Nigeria is, what would the position be there? Am I right in thinking that if we and Eire go into the European Community the citizens of Eire will all acquire the right to go to Northern Ireland? This is one of the factors which we must take into account.
My Lords, many of us regret this Bill. Rightly or wrongly, I think it is being looked at by perfectly ordinary people outside Parliament who do not read Hansard as if there is a battle going on in Parliament between one lot of people who want us to have another flood of coloured immigrants and the valiant Party which is determined to stop that flow and to keep them out. I think
1142
that this Bill is unnecessary, and that it will do harm. I should vote against the Second Reading, if it were not the practice of your Lordships' House not to do so when a Bill has passed the elected Chamber.
11.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the time is now almost exactly 11.15 p.m. and many noble Lords have expressed a desire to vote either once or twice. It follows from that that I must deliberately prune what I had intended to say of all but the barest essentials. If noble Lords find that I have not dealt with particular points they have raised in their speeches, they will probably wish to forgive me rather than to prolong my efforts, though I should be happy if they wished me to do so. I cannot therefore reply in detail to most of the points made by the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. They were, many of them and perhaps most of them, Committee points. I only say, so far as the Second Reading is concerned, that so far as I know we should not have to alter one word of the Bill should we enter the European Economic Community. I should like to add this on the constitutional point with which the noble and learned Lord closed his speech: that there is no doubt whatever that this Government have a mandate for this Bill in all its essential particulars—all the particulars which we need to discuss on Second Reading.
There are two Members of this House, one the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, who made a maiden speech which I hope I may welcome, who fought the last Election and who know from contact with the constituencies where their constituents' vote would be were they here to-day. In my judgment it would be a very serious thing for the unelected Chamber deliberately to rebut a Government with a recent mandate to do the very thing which they are proposing to do to-day, the more so if they happen to belong to radical Parties who would much dislike it were our roles reversed.
The debate began with a number of polite remarks about myself, which I should like to acknowledge gratefully. They came from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and, I believe, from the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, whose speech I did

1143
not happen to hear but I have heard it was a very good one, and from the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. But I must regretfully decline the compliment paid to me by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who suggested that for some reason I was going to argue contrary to my real opinion. Be I right or be I wrong, I have never been more confident in my life that in supporting this Bill I am doing absolutely the right thing and that the House would be right to give it a Second Reading. I spoke of our mandate, but every single provision of this Bill of any importance, every single provision worthy of reference in a Second Reading debate, was spelt out by myself at length, not once but again and again, in the years from 1966 to 1970, and in the very lecture on race relations from which I am told the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, quoted I spelt it out again in considerable detail and with considered emphasis. There can be absolutely no doubt that the policy which I am supporting to-night is the policy which I sought to propose when in Opposition, not as a matter of election pledge but of continued debate in another place.
I will try to develop why I say that. I thought perhaps the most significant event of this debate came when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that he bitterly opposed this Bill; and he added that he had bitterly opposed the 1962 Bill. He was right, of course, on both occasions. He bitterly opposed the 1962 Bill, but he now recognises that it was probably necessary. He could hardly do anything else, because under that Bill the Labour Government reduced the number of vouchers from the rather considerable figure of about 30,000, where we had left it, to something like the 4,000 where it now stands. Surely your Lordships' memories are not so short. That Bill was opposed by the most reverend Primate in almost the same kind of language that he used to-day; it was opposed by the Bishops, but not by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester; it was opposed by the Labour Party and the Liberal Party with the same kind of groundless fears that have been expressed to-day. Now they recognise that it was necessary.
1144
If noble Lords with a little longer memory cast their minds back to 1905, the Aliens Bill of that year was opposed in exactly the same way, with almost exactly the same arguments. So was the Bill of 1968, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred. Yet the noble and learned Lord says—and I agree with him—that since the appalling Bill, which it gave him so much pain to introduce, race relations have improved, as he thinks—I think probably rightly—because he had the courage to do what he then did. We believe that if we had not introduced the Bill in 1962 there would have been a much worse situation as regards race relations in this country now. I have no doubt whatever that our predecessors in 1905 were equally right. Each time the fears were expressed; each time they were groundless. Each time successive Governments took on the legislation of their predecessors, and each time the result was the opposite of what the critics had supposed. Are we really to be so naive as to believe that history will not repeat itself? I am sure that it will. I am sure that in truth and in fact this is necessary.
I can say with perfect humility that I have spent some of the most disagreeable hours of my life in the last ten years trying to persuade my own Party and the people of this country of two complementary propositions. The first is that this country has a right as a matter of its own independence to impose its own conditions of entry for permanent settlement; and the second is that if it allows or invites people to come here, they must be treated, irrespective of race, colour, creed or any other irrelevant difference, as equals with ourselves in point of human dignity and rights. I do not regard these two propositions as divergent. I do not regard them as independent of one another. I do not believe that either will stand the test of the rough experience to which it is exposed unless each is complemented by the other. That is why I believe that this Bill represents a realistic and proper measure.
I venture to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the most reverend Primate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I do not doubt their sincerity, and I warmly applaud the work that they are doing for race relations. But

1145
I wonder whether any of them have reflected how much harm to race relations was done in 1962 by the expression of those groundless fears. Do your Lordships think that that was the right attitude to allay the suspicions and anxieties of the immigrants? Surely the right thing to have done, in retrospect, was to have allayed their fears by telling them that they were groundless. When the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his powerful opening speech says to your Lordships that he finds the Bill unnecessary, and spells it out; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, spells it out again in his powerful winding-up speech and says in truth and in fact, to adopt the words of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, from the Cross-Benches, that there may be very little necessity for the Bill—very little necessity because the powers are already there and are being exercised wisely and humanely in effect, surely I am entitled to say to those noble Lords who have taken this attitude: " If that is right, are you really doing the right thing by the immigrants by trying to tell them that their fears are not groundless?" The most reverend Primate accused us of want of sensitivity and imagination. May I respectfully ask him to look at the eyes in his own face?
Let me put this to your Lordships. Of course, if the immigrants' fears are well grounded and if there is an objective reality in their fears of oppression or discrimination by this or any other Government, such fears ought to be examined with objectivity and care. But if in truth their fears are subjective in origin and in fact there is no difference, as the most reverend Primate suggests—and I think he is wrong, for reasons which I will give—between the powers conferred by this Bill and those which are now exercised, or in the way effectively in which they are being administered, surely it would be in the interests of race relations if all those noble Lords who carry so much more influence in these circles than I were to tell them so; tell them that these fears are subjective and that no Government which is likely to come to Power in this country, no Parliament which has a majority, is likely to tolerate for an instant the kind of oppression about which they express anxiety.
Of course, I do not agree with them that there is no difference. I could justify
1146
this Bill solely on the grounds of law reform. The law in relation to citizenship, immigration and status is in a state of the utmost confusion. if the hour were earlier, I would expatiate at some length on this. As it is, I will content myself with endorsing what my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said in his very powerful and experienced speech. We have, for historical reasons which do no one any discredit but which certainly are wholly irrational, gradually built up no law of citizenship at all but a series of codes, of which the two main codes are sets of rules similar in character, but never exactly identified, to those which existed first under the two Aliens Acts and then under the two Commonwealth Immigrants Acts. There can be no justification for continuing along these divergent lines. They must amalgamated into a single code.
The noble Lord referred to what I said about the Aliens Acts. There arc two: the Aliens Restriction Act 1914 and its amending Act of 1919. The Aliens Restriction Act 1914 was passed in a single night as part of the emergency legislation at the beginning of the First World War. It was designed to last only for the Emergency. It has stood ever since, with the single amendment of 1919, when it was to continue from year to year in the Schedule to the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. There are two wholly unsatisfactory Commonwealth immigrants Acts. Can there be any justification now for continuing one of the fundamental laws of our Kingdom in this precarious and complicated state, on which are erected two entirely different codes, each dealing with the same kind of situation, each dealing with it in detail in a rather different way? I do not want to put the case for this Bill solely on legalistic grounds, although in law reform I might have hoped for an ally in the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who is so often pressing me in rather smaller spheres, like the Burial Acts, or the Hallmarking system, to bring our law up-to-date, but apparently not in things that really matter. I do not want to put the matter on purely legalistic grounds, as I am sure he would wish to do, since he is a great law reformer. But let me examine the social case for this legislation. Having said, as I have done

1147
at the outset, that the mark of the independence of a nation is that it is entitled to impose restrictions at its gates, I will make this short series of points before I sit down, since otherwise I fear I shall outstay my welcome.
In the first place, one must recognise that this great country, however much we may start with liberal ideas, and from whatever kind of Administration we suffer or rejoice, enjoys a standard of life which, except for a few highly developed countries in Western Europe, the United States, the older countries of the Commonwealth and perhaps in Japan would be a source of envy and wonder to 19 out of 20 human beings who ever inhabited the face of this planet. Is it not obvious that if we do not erect some kind of fence, this country, enjoying our own privileges as we do, would act as a magnet to the peoples of the earth'? Surely we are entitled to erect some kind of a fence. We have to decide tonight what kind of a fence it is to be, and whether it can be a rational or an irrational one. It involves absolutely no criticism of the poor of this world that they would like to come here, still less of those who are here. I have never tolerated, for an instant, an attack upon them. They came here because they were entitled to come; they came here, very often, because they were invited to come. They came here to keep their families in better circumstances than they could otherwise do. They had every right to feel that they were justified in coming, and every right to demand that they were treated with absolute equality while here. That is no criticism of them whatever.
There are many of us who feel sincerely that we owe a great duty to the less fortunate nations of the world. But I ask your Lordships to consider a simple question: is this country manifestly underpopulated? I would have thought probably not. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says all this has to do with race and that we must not play any kind of numbers game. It is not manifestly underpopulated, yet it is a magnet to a human race, most of whom enjoy a standard of life far inferior to our own.
What are we to do? If we owe them a duty it is certainly not to make a sig
1148
nificant contribution in point of numbers to the people who want to come here. That is not on. It is always a delusion to think that we can do it. Let us consider what we do. In point of fact we have never had a law of citizenship in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady White, thought that this Bill ought to have been taken as the opportunity to provide us with one. I wish it were possible, but it is wholly impracticable to think of it. The noble Lord, Lord Garner, explained part of the reason why. The fact of the matter is that we have got into a historic situation from which we must retreat rather urgently.
The question which one is discussing when discussing immigration has nothing whatever to do with people who visit here, study here or who come here for a temporary job. It has to do with people who want to stay here permanently. The noble Baroness, Lady White, says that the great difference between aliens and the Commonwealth immigrant is that the Commonwealth immigrant wants to settle here permanently but that none of the aliens do; they all want just to stop here for a time. She is confusing cause and effect. That effect is the effect of legislation and not the justification of it. If you have a system of law which over a series of years provides a statutory right to settle in one class of case and none in the other, then of course you will find that in the first class the people who come will want to settle, and in the second they will not be able to. But the question is whether that has any longer any rationality at all. My Lords, my conviction is that it has none. Once we had accepted the position in 1948 that nations of the Commonwealth had the absolute right to become independent, to become republics if need be, to owe no allegiance to Her Majesty, or, if they owed allegiance to Her Majesty in right of the Crown of that particular Commonwealth country, not in right of the Crown of the United Kingdom, there could be no rational reason why we should discriminate against the rest of the world and in favour of that country.
It is said: "Well what is left of Commonwealth citizenship?". Several noble Lords have answered that question.

1149
But let me give this additional answer. What we are imposing in this Bill is precisely what is imposed in I think the vast majority of, if not all, Common-wealth countries against our individual citizens when they emigrate there. That is what it is; and it is precisely what, other things being equal, almost every civilised country in the world—and I know of no exception—imposes on immigrants into its shores where they feel there is a danger of excessive numbers. That is what, and nothing else. And if we are told that there must be work permits, that is what we have to suffer if we want to work in Commonwealth countries. This is what aliens have to undergo when they come here. For fifty years it has been going on without any serious complaint at all. Then we are told that it is something novel, and indentured labour. My Lords, that is moonshine. It is part of the situation in the developed world to-day, in almost every country in the Commonwealth or outside it. Why should this country not exercise the same rights, the same powers, the same kind of legislation as other Commonwealth nations exercise in relation to us, and which other nations of the world exercise against us?
Complaint has been made of the term "patrial"—not a word I invented, or a word which I take any credit for. But the right of abode to which it relates, so far as it relates to the parental source of patriality, or the grand-parental source of patriality, is something which confers a right which does not exist at the moment and, so far as I know, takes none away. Was it wrong to confer such a right? My own mother was American. To the end of my days I shall enjoy in relation to the United States the right to go there which probably most of your Lordships do not possess. Are the Americans uncivilised because they allow to the son of an American mother greater rights than to those who do not have that privilege?
One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—cited the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a body with which I hope I am in friendly relationship. But have they ever reflected upon the Law of Israel, the privilege given to Jews to enter Israel, which I would not enjoy? Is this a form wanting in civilisation? What Arab country does not do it? What country of Europe does not do it? There is nothing uncivilised in recognising that there may be a particular relationship between one country and another.
No, my Lords, racialism is something other and different and worse. Racialism is the doctrine that one nation is superior to another is point of quality; that its people are entitled to greater human dignity or greater human rights than another. But human feelings of relationship and connection are not in the same category and are not to be contemned in the same breath. My Lords, I promised to be short and I am afraid I have been longer, but at any rate I hope that your Lordships will pass this Bill on Second Reading and reject the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down may I ask him one question? I thought his strongest argument was the one about population: does not the partial clause open a legal door and allow perhaps hordes to come in?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think so, but after my peroration I am not prepared to quantify it.
11.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 148; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Amory, V.

Boston, L.

Abinger, L.

Auckland. L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Balfour, E.

Bradford, E.

Aldenham, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Brecon, L.

Aldington, L.

Barn by, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Alport, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Burnham, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Bessborough, E.

Chelmer, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Greenway, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Colville of Culross, V.

Grenfell, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colwyn, L.

Gridley, L.

Oakshott, L.

Colyton, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Conesford, L.

Hacking, L.

Pender, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hailes, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Cottesloe, L.

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

Poole, L.

Courtown, E.

Radnor, E.

Craigavon, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hatherton, L.

Reading, M.

Cranbrook, E.

Hawke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Crathorne, L.

Hood, V.

Rhyl, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Rochdale, V.

Crowther, L.

Ilford, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Ironside, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Daventry, V.

Kemsley, V.

St. Helens, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L.

Kings Norton, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Salisbury, M.

Digby, L.

Latymer, L.

Sandford, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.

Dudley, E.

Lindsay of Birker, L.

Savile, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Effingham, E.

Lothian, M.

Skelmerdale, L.

Egremont, L.

Lovat, L.

Somers, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lucan, E.

Stamp, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Lyell, L.

Sudeley, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Swansea, L.

Falkland, V.

Mancroft, L.

Thomas, L.

Ferrers, E.

Margadale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Forres, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Merrivale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Furness, V.

Mersey, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Gage, V.

Middleton, L.

Vivian, L.

Garner, L.

Molson, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Glasgow, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ward of Witley. V.

Gore-Booth, L.

Monson, L.

Winchester, L.Bp.

Goschen. V. [Teller.]

Mountevans, L.

Windlesham, L.

Gowrie, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Gray, L.

Moyne, L.

Yarborough, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Faringdon, L.

Platt. L.

Amherst, L.

Foot, L.

Ravensdale, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell. Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Annan. L.

Gifford, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Balogh, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Goodman, L.

Seear, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Guildford, L.Bp.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Byers, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Tanlaw, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hunt, L.

Thurso, V.

Canterbury, L.Abp.

Longford, E.

Wade, L.

Chalfont. L.

London, L.Bp.

Walston, L.

Coventry, L.Bp.

Lytton, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mais, L.

Willis, L.

Wynne-Jones,L.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMMIGRATION BILL AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
11.50 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House, while recognising that all countries have the right to impose immigration controls, regrets that the Immigration Bill now before Parliament adversely affects the existing rights of Commonwealth citizens legally resident in this country; is likely to harm community relations without materially affecting the rate of immigration; and ignores that concern for the mutual interests of member countries on which the Commonwealth relationship is based.—(Lord O'Hagan.)
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 143.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkland. V.

Phillips, Bs.

Amherst, E.

Faringdon, L.

Platt, L.

Amulree, L.

Foot, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Annan, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Raglan, L.

Ardwick. L.

Gardiner, L.

Ravensdale, L.

Balogh, L.

Garner, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gifford, L.

Rochester, L.Bp.

Beswick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowden, L.

Goodman, L.

Seear, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Guildford, L.Bp.

Segal, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hall, V.

Serota, Bs.

Byers, L.

Henley, L.

Shackleton, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Hertford, M.

Shepherd, L.

Canterbury, L.Abp.

Hunt, L.

Southwark, L.Bp.

Caradon, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Chalfont, L.

Listowel, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Thurso, V.

Coventry, L.Bp.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wade, L.

Crook, L.

London, L.Bp.

Walston, L.

Crowther, L.

Longford, E.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lytton, E.

White, Bs.

De Clifford, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Willis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Norwich, V.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Abinger, L.

Denham, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Aldenham, L.

Digby, L.

Lovat, L.

Aldington, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lucan, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dudley, E.

Lyell, L.

Allerton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Alport, L.

Effingham, E.

Mancroft, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Egremont, L.

Margadale, L.

Amory, V.

Elliot of Harwood. Bs.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Balfour, E.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mersey, V.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Middleton, L.

Barnby, L.

Forres, L.

Molson, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Belstead, L.

Furness, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gage, V.

Monson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gisborough, L.

Mountevans, L.

Boston, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Moyne. L.

Bradford, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Northchurch, Bs.

Brecon, L.

Gowrie, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Oakshott, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte. Bs.

Greenway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grenfell, L.

Pender, L.

Burnham, L.

Gridley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Chelmer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Poole, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hacking, L.

Radnor, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hailes, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Colwyn, L.

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

Reading, M.

Colyton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Conesford, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Rhyl, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hatherton, L.

Rochdale, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly,

Courtown, E.

Hood, V.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Helens, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ironside, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kemsley, V.

Salisbury, M.

Crawshaw, L.

Killearn, L.

Sandford, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandys, L.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Savile, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thomas, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Somers, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Stamp, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sudeley, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Wolverton, L.

Swansea, L.

Vivian, L.

Yarborough, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
Seventh Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
  SALMON FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND
  SALMON FISHERIES IN SCOTLAND