Sitting of 7 December 1972

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

  Beam Trawling
  Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I ask leave to present a Petition on behalf of the fishermen of Rye and district who are concerned with the effect of beam trawling in the waters off the Sussex coast.
  The Petition concludes:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do most urgently debate the conservation and safety of Britain's Inshore Fishing Grounds to give protection to the livelihood of Britain's Inshore Fishermen. And that your Honourable House do approve to ban all Beam Trawling along the South Coast within Britain's Territorial Waters 12-mile Limit except by local Trawl Permits to meet special local area needs.
  The Petition goes on to say that the present inadequate antiquated system of patrol protection be substituted by
  a new system and a number of fast vessels competent to protect all areas under their control for the supply of food to the Nation from Britain's own fishing grounds and do urge your Honourable House to call for an immediate debate on these matters.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Armed Security Guards
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards the increasing use of armed security guards.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): I am not aware that there is an increasing use. It is not
    1644
    the practice of chief officers of police to grant firearm certificates for protection purposes whether to security guards or other persons.
    Mr. Meacher: Is the Minister aware that there are now at least 100 persons in this country under the constant surveillance of armed security guards? What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's estimate of the cost to the British taxpayer of guarding Royal, political and diplomatic personnel from abroad? Is not there a danger of the matter getting out of hand if the practice escalates?
    Mr. Carlisle: It all depends on what the hon. Gentleman means by "armed". As the hon. Gentleman knows, under the Firearms Act, 1968, any application for a firearm certificate has to be accompanied by a good reason for having the firearm in question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recommended to chief officers of police that personal protection should never be regarded as a good reason for the purposes of the relevant section. The position of the civilian security guard is no different from that of any other person.

    Guard Dogs
    Mr. Laurance Reedasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to strengthen the law on the keeping of guard dogs.
    Mr. Carlisle: No, Sir. I am not persuaded that special measures of control are necessary.
    Mr. Reed: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall the case of the small boy in my constituency who was attacked by three alsatians and a doberman pinscher? Is he aware that an eleven-year-old girl was attacked by the same pack of dogs, with the result that she has had to have 18 stitches in different parts of the body? Is it not time that the Home Office did something about the matter?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am aware that my hon. Friend asked me a Question about guard dogs on an earlier occasion. I am sorry to hear of the further incident in his constituency. If he cares to write to me about it I will look into the individual facts. But I must make it clear that in the present situation, those who,

    1645
    unfortunately are attacked or bitten by guard dogs represent under 2 per cent. of all accidents involving dogs.
    Mr. George Cunningham: Does the Minister realise that that is no consolation to the 2 per cent.? Does he recall an incident in my constituency when dogs dragged a four-year-old boy under a fence because the fence was too high off the ground?
    Given that the Government are proposing, in another Department, to introduce legislation specifying the height and depth of fences used to protect lorry parks, does the hon. and learned Gentleman not think that the least we can do is to have some provision that ensures that fences around such dogs extend to a specified distance beneath the ground?
    Mr. Carlisle: The position is that the behaviour of guard dogs, like all other dogs, is subject to the normal provisions of the law relating to dangerous dogs. However, I must advise the hon. Gentleman that the advice that we have received from the police is that regulations would be difficult to promote and enforce, and that they would be unlikely to be fully effective. The police do not consider that legislation specifically related to guard dogs is necessary.

    Children (Adoption and Custody)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he proposes to introduce legislation to change the law in respect of adoption and custody of children.
    Mr. Carlisle: The Government will reach conclusions on this matter when they have completed their study of the report of the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children.
    Mr. Fraser: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the High Court case re "O"—a minor—earlier this week has highlighted the need for legislation? Have the Government not had an interim report, and the more recent report? There may be thousands of children at risk and there is an urgent need for legislation on this subject.
    Mr. Carlisle: The case re "O"—a minor—is not immediately at the front of my mind at the moment. I will certainly consider it. I am sorry that I was
    1646
    not aware of it. The hon. Gentleman will realise that the report, which is a major one, was published only in October of this year. The Government have been asked to allow time for professional bodies to study and comment on it before coming to any conclusion on legislation. That is what we would wish to do. It is a major and complex report.

    Dangerous Chemicals (Carriage by Road)
    Mr. Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from the British Safety Council and the Chemical Industries Association about the carriage of dangerous chemicals by road; and what replies he has sent.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I have nothing to add at present to the replies given to Questions by the hon. Member on 9th November.—[Vol. 845; c. 214, 215.]
    Mr. Huckfield: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that so many new dangerous chemicals are coming on to the market that the only really satisfactory solution to this problem is a 24-hour emergency telephone service? Does he not accept that it is no good telling the British Safety Council that he is in touch with the Chemical Industries Association, when that association says that he is not? Will he not, instead, accept the British Safety Council's offer to provide this 24-hour telephone service?
    Mr. Lane: I can bring the hon. Gentleman a little further up to date than that. I accept that this is a very serious and important matter. With respect, he is doing a little less than justice to the progress that we have already made in extending these controls. We want to extend them more. On the point of the 24-hour service, I have been in touch with the Chemical Industries Association recently and it has undertaken to complete its inquiry and consultations as quickly as possible.

    Women Offenders (Psychiatric Treatment)
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions he is now making for

    1647
    disturbed women convicted of offences requiring care and psychiatric treatment.
    Mr. Carlisle: Courts already have powers to make orders enabling an offender to receive psychiatric treatment in hospital or within the community where this is medically recommended and suitable arrangements can be made. Within the prison system there are full-time medical staff with psychiatric and other specialist qualifications and experience in treating disturbed women; and consultant psychotherapists visit regularly.
    Mrs. Short: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that provisions within the prison system for psychiatric treatment for women are grossly inadequate, that the service is understaffed, and that public opinion generally is incensed that women like Pauline Jones and Jacqueline Paddon are sent to Holloway and kept there for many months? Does he not think that it is high time that alternative accommodation to Holloway, and to closed prisons generally, was found for these women?
    Mr. Carlisle: The hon. Lady has asked me two separate questions. To deal with the second one first, on the named cases that she has mentioned I can only repeat that it would be completely wrong if there were any power to detain a person in hospital other than on medical evidence—and no such evidence was available. As for the general point about the prison service, at Holloway there are five full-time medical officers—all of whom have psychiatric experience—and six visiting psychotherapists. Holloway is about to be rebuilt as a medically-orientated prison.

    Immigrants
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has now made with the review of the scheme for the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants.
    Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend is studying the results of the first 12 months' operation of the new scheme, but he is not yet ready to make a statement.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has this not gone on for rather a long time? Is my hon.
    1648
    Friend satisfied that our election pledge is being fulfilled, and does suitable machinery exist for helping those immigrants who wish to be repatriated?
    Mr. Lane: Our election pledge was carried out by Section 29 of the 1971 Immigration Act, through which, as my hon. Friend knows, we are now using International Social Service to administer this new scheme, which is in addition to the supplementary benefits commission scheme. We have recently had a report from ISS. I met the director myself to discuss it, and we are seeing what lessons can be learned from the first 12 months' operation—whether the present criteria are too narrow. We are also considering possible changes to ensure that genuine demands for repatriation are being met, so far as is practicable.
    Mr. Evelyn King: How many families have been repatriated in the last 12 months and how many were repatriated in the year up to 1970?
    Mr. Lane: During the past year we have had inquiries under the new scheme from nearly 500 families. These inquiries take a lot of time but, under that scheme, 30 families have already departed or are about to depart. In addition, as I mentioned, there is the scheme operated by the supplementary benefits commission, under which an average of 100 families a year have been repatriated over the last four years. The figure for this year will be slightly over 100.
    Mr. Powell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the intention of Parliament in Section 29 of the 1971 Act has been almost completely sabotaged by the manner in which its administration has been entrusted to a small private body, virtually incapable of coping with the volume of work?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept that the intention of Parliament has been sabotaged; nor do I accept the aspersions that my right hon. Friend casts on International Social Service. As I say, we are reviewing this matter, and if it proves necessary to widen the criteria we shall do so—and we shall announce it in due course.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's election pledge is satisfied by the repatriation, under this section. of 30 families a year?
    Mr. Lane: I am not implying anything of the sort. I am implying that the machinery has been set up according to our undertaking embodied in Section 29 of the Act. We are naturally now seeing how it is working in practice, and we shall make changes if we think fit.
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with bodies with experience in the field of immigration casework in formulating the new immigration rules.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): These bodies had the opportunity to comment on the draft rules when they were published last year, and full account was taken of their comments in revising the draft.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of his predecessors at the Home Office, during the passage of the Immigration Bill, said that there had been no prior consultation with these bodies before the Bill was laid before the House? Is it not quite clear that there have been no real consultations with organisations that are really active in this matter, and could not they teach the right hon. Gentleman a thing or two and help him to get out of the present mess?
    Mr. Carr: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There have been frequent and continuing consultations with, for example, the Community Relations Commission, the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Standing Conference of Asian Organisations in the United Kingdom, and one or two local community relations committees. What they have had to say in respect to the rules was in many respects taken account of, and the results of the consultations were seen in the changes between the original draft and the latest version.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Secretary of State tell the House, apart from consulting these various bodies, what consultations, if any, he has held about the new immigration rules with the ordinary people of this country?
    Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend, along with all other hon. Members, represents the
    1650
    ordinary people of this country, and the draft rules lay on the Table for over a year before the final version was produced.
    Mr. John Fraser: Members of Parliament are in a very difficult situation in considering long and detailed rules which they have no chance to amend. Is the Secretary of State willing to accept the suggestion of consultation and refer the draft immigration rules to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, so that hon. Members may have a chance to look at the detail and make comments?
    Mr. Carr: I believe that our normal consultation procedures here should be adequate. Hon. Members had well over a year in which to discuss the details with me, my predecessor and my colleagues in the Home Office. They had time to consult about this. Whatever else may be wrong with the rules hon. Members did not lack the opportunity for consultation. I would not, however, rule out something different in the future.

    New Year's Eve (Prohibited Activities)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT those public functions and activities that are prohibited, including the limitations to the activities of individuals, on 31st December, 1972, as a result of this New Year's Eve day falling on a Sunday.
    Mr. Lane: The Sunday Observance Act, 1780 prohibits the opening and use on a Sunday of any place to which the public is admitted on payment for public entertainment, amusement or debate. Exceptions have now been made in respect of the cinema, concert halls, museums and picture galleries, and the like, lecture halls and theatres. I will, with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the various statutes which impose restrictions on activities taking place on Sunday.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he confirm that no public dance can be held on next New Year's Eve and that if any other public function can be held those attending it will be inhibited and limited in

    1651
    what they can do and enjoy? Is there not a genuine case for excluding from the provisions of the Sunday Observance Act and the Sunday Entertainments Act the odd occasions when New Year's Eve falls on a Sunday?
    Mr. Lane: There was no great difficulty when it last fell on a Sunday, five

    STATUTES APPLYING TO ALL KINDS OF ACTIVITIES TAKING PLACE ON A SUNDAY IN ENGLAND AND WALES

    Sunday Observance Act 1780 as modified by:

    Public entertainments for which admission is charged.

    Sunday Entertainments Act 1932

    Cinema, concerts, galleries etc., lectures.

    Licensing Act 1964, section 88

    Certain late Saturday night entertainments.

    Sunday Cinema Act 1972, section 1

    Cinema.

    Sunday Theatre Act 1972, sections 1 and 2

    Theatre.

    Game Act 1831, section 3

    Killing or taking of game.

    Gaming Act 1845, sections 12 and 13 as modified by:

    Billiards.

    Licensing Act 1964, section 182(2)

    Billiards.

    Shops Act 1950, sections 12, 22 to 23, 47 to 65 and Schedules 5, 6 and 7

    Sunday trading.

    Protection of Birds Act 1954, section 2(1) and (2)

    Killing or taking of certain birds.

    Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, sections 5 and 10 and Schedule 4

    On-course betting and off-course cash betting.

    Licensing Act 1964, sections 60, 62, 65 to 67 and 70

    Sale and supply of intoxicating liquor.

    Gaming Act 1968, section 18

    Gaming in licensed clubs.

    Search Warrants
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the requirements to be followed by police officers in applying for a search warrant.
    Mr. R. Carr: The provisions in the relevant statutes vary in detail; but, in general, the police must satisfy a justice of the peace by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for the issue of a search warrant in any particular case.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He is no doubt aware of the wide criticism that is made of the apparent ease with which certain police officers can obtain search warrants. Therefore, is it not time that a system of reporting back to the magistrate who signed the warrant was introduced? This would go a long way towards easing the fears of many people that many officers can, on demand, obtain search warrants without afterwards having to justify their reasons?
    Mr. Carr: I am not quite sure that I have understood what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but I shall certainly study his question in HANSARD. However, the House would be wrong in imagining that the police are in some way abusing this
    years ago. I want to see how it goes on this occasion—but as the coming New Year's Eve heralds another year of achievement by the Conservative Government I am sure that there will be suitable celebrations, whatever the anomalies of the law.
    Following is the list:
    right. They have to go before a magistrate on oath—and a magistrate has considerable powers to question police officers and to satisfy himself that the request is justified. It would be very wrong of me to criticise magistrates in the exercise of their duty.
    Mr. S. C. Silkin: In view of the concern that has been widely expressed recently, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the question of the extent to which magistrates are taking the opportunity, which the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said exists, of really going into the facts before they authorise a warrant?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, I will, but I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor issued guidance—instructions, I think I might say—to all those responsible for the training of justices of the peace in this matter. I shall certainly consider the matter and satisfy myself that magistrates are aware of their rights and duties.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not a smear on the police to say that certain officers, whom the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) does not specify, are getting round the law in this matter? Is this not regrettable at a time when the police ought to have the fullest possible support?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly if any such smear were made I would reject it utterly, because whoever else is to blame in this it is not the police, for asking. They have a perfect right to ask. It is the duty of magistrates to examine and grant applications, but if warrants are granted the police certainly cannot be blamed.

    Alimony
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters he received in November 1972 from women who have not received the alimony they have been granted by court order.
    Mr. Carlisle: Three, Sir.
    Mr. Dalyell: I give credit to the Government for the measures that they have brought in, but is not the nub of this complex problem the fact that many women who are deserted no longer feel in a mood to get mixed up with lawyers and, therefore, do not pursue their rights under this legislation? In these circumstances, is there any possibility of the Ten Minutes Rule Bill which I shall he introducing on Tuesday, 12th December being given a fair wind by the Government?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not know whether I ought to comment on women getting mixed up with lawyers, in view of my profession, but as far as I can see the provisions which the hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to recognise appear to be working. This is a complex problem. One has always known that. I can only repeat what I have said on many previous occasions to the hon. Gentleman, that in the end it is often the economic position of the husband against whom the woman is trying to get the order which affects the matter.
    Mr. John Fraser: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that this difficulty sometimes arises because of bloodymindedness on the part of the husband? Will he follow the suggestions made by my hon. Friend and discuss with the Inland Revenue and the Department of Health and Social Security a more effective way of collecting alimony and maintenance, either through the social security system or through taxation?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree that the problem arises from inability or unwillingness to
    1654
    pay, or a combination of both. On the second part of the hon. Member's question, his hon. Friend has taken up this matter with other Departments and has tabled many Questions to them. I must stand by the fact that it is not a matter for the Home Office, and that the Finer Committee is due to report shortly on the problem.
    Mr. Dalyell: When is "shortly"?

    Cruel Sports
    Mr. William Priceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce legislation to ban fox hunting.
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to ban all cruel sports, such as fox hunting, stag hunting and hare coursing.
    Mr. Lane: No, Sir.
    Mr. Price: Will the Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and ask him—when he is next across at Buckingham Palace—whether he will explain to Princess Anne that the vast majority of our people are violently opposed to blood sports and are appalled at her determination to bestow Royal patronage upon acts of blatant cruelty? Will the hon. Gentleman also ask his right hon. Friend to explain to Princess Anne that some of us are concerned about the company she is keeping, and that the time has come when she really ought to see a little less of masters of fox hunts and a little more of the lads on the shop floor?
    Mr. Lane: A lot of what the hon. Gentleman has said is not particularly helpful in this difficult matter, on which varying views are held, inside and outside the House. The original Question was about legislation. The Government have a very full programme of excellent legislation, in which such a Bill does not feature, but it is open to any private Member to put one forward, if and when he wishes.
    Mr. Lipton: Will the Minister bear in mind that the Prime Minister and the majority of the Cabinet do not indulge in blood sports? Would it not be a good thing if others in high places who enjoy a comfortable living at the taxpayers'

    1655
    expense followed the good example of the Prime Minister and many of his Cabinet colleagues?
    Mr. Lane: This is entirely a matter of individual judgment. I do not propose to follow the hon. Member any further down the road that he is suggesting this afternoon.
    Sir D. Renton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the late Mr. Tom Williams, when Labour Minister of Agriculture, said in the House that a plea to abolish fox hunting was no more than a plea to nationalise it?
    Mr. Lane: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House of some things that have been said in the past.
    Mr. Paget: Is the hon. Gentleman—[An HON. MEMBER: "Tally ho!"] Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a recent television programme the Secretary—I think—for the League Against Cruel Sports expressed himself as being in favour of pursuing a fox with dogs so long as it had been previously crippled? Is he further aware that Princess Anne's mother, grandmother and grandfather were keen followers of the Pytchley Hunt, and that in my urban constituency of Northampton at the last election I had 380 members of the Labour Party and over 2,000 members of the Pytchley Hunt Supporters Club?
    Mr. Lane: This is difficult country. I am very grateful to the hon. and learned Member for reminding the House both of the television programme and of his experience at the last General Election.

    Drugs
    Mr. Loveridgeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the pattern of illegal drug usage in the United Kingdom.
    Mr. R. Carr: It is a matter of concern that offences against the dangerous drugs laws have been increasing. But so have convictions; and the enforcement agencies have been strengthened in a number of ways.
    Mr. Loveridge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many parents of possible addicts will not approach the police
    1656
    for fear of informing against their children? In view of the sharp increase in the number of convictions for the possession of heroin, will my right hon. Friend draw parents into the battle against addiction? To make this possible, will he consider setting up specially trained groups of police officers and medical workers to whom parents may go in confidence for advice in such a situation?
    Mr. Carr: I understand the sort of human situation which my hon. Friend mentions and I shall certainly consider his suggestion. He will, I think, be aware already that not only is there now a central drugs intelligence unit serving the whole country but that most police areas in England and Wales now have their special drugs squads. I shall certainly see in what ways their service can be extended to the sort of advice that my hon. Friend mentioned.

    Political Murder
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will bring in a bill to reintroduce the death penalty for political murder within the United Kingdom.
    Mr. R. Carr: No, Sir.
    Mr. McMaster: If the Home Secretary is unwilling to reintroduce capital punishment will he consider its reintroduction at least for the murder of a soldier or a policeman within the United Kingdom, as political murders, particularly those in Northern Ireland, are often committed by fanatical people who are difficult to trace? Is it not the Government's duty to protect civilians in these circumstances?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, it is, but of course the debate, as always on this matter, among other things, rests on one's judgment of the value of capital punishment as a deterrent. Capital punishment remains in Northern Ireland for certain of the type of murders to which my hon. Friend is referring, and it has hardly worked as a good deterrent there.
    Mr. Paget: Does the Home Secretary not agree that where murders are committed by fanatical people whom it is difficult to trace capital punishment is least likely to be a deterrent?
    Mr. Carr: This is a matter of personal view and conscience. It has nothing to do with normal party allegiance. It has been discussed in the House a good many times in recent years and few people are in any doubt that there is a natural and fairly strong majority here against any restoration of capital punishment.

    Parathion
    Mr. McNamaraasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether parathion is included in the scheduled list of poisons covered by List 2 under the Pharmacy and Poisons Act 1933; if he is satisfied with the conditions for its sale; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lane: Parathion is included in Part II of the Poisons List. Controls over its sale are strict and I do not think they require review.
    Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for the letters he has sent me in the past week about the unfortunate incident in my constituency. Action taken at that time, while very proper, showed that the police and fire services need to have continually brought to their attention new developments in this sphere, so that the type of alarm raised in my constituency will not occur again.
    Mr. Lane: We try to keep up with developments so that the police and fire services have immediate information. It is greatly to the credit of the fire officer who gave the alarm that he should have done so. Fortunately, it turned out that the canister contained malathion and not parathion. I gather that malathion is not as toxic as parathion.

    Ugandan Asians
    Mr. Bradleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the Uganda Resettlement Board to provide long-term financial aid for the City of Leicester.
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange for the Uganda Resettlement Board to provide immediate and retrospective financial aid for the City of Leicester.
    Mr. Lane: Leicester, like other local authorities, has received guidance from the board about the financial assistance payable by it. Authorities may be reimbursed for one year for the total cost of temporary arrangements directly attributable to resettlement and may also qualify for 75 per cent. grant on capital expenditure on facilities which will have a useful life beyond the emergency. A grant for the re-opening of a primary school at Leicester has already been authorised.
    Mr. Bradley: Does the hon. Member not realise that the assistance is hopelessly inadequate? Leicester's problems are long-term and enduring. There is also a great deal of overcrowding in the city, with thousands of local-born citizens awaiting housing accommodation and hundreds of children unable to find school places. Why will the Government not empower the resettlement board to make grants available for much needed long-term facilities instead of leaving the burden to local ratepayers?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept that the help offered has been inadequate to the extent that the hon. Member says. I appreciate the great problems that Leicester faces. We have already had several meetings with representatives from Leicester, and I know that there is a long-term problem which we can discuss further with the deputation from Leicester, which is coming to meet the Home Secretary in the middle of this month. If the present arrangements are not thought to be adequate in cases at the margin we can, of course, reconsider them.
    Mr. Janner: Is it not correct to say that so far Leicester has not received a penny from the Government by way of help in the present extremely difficult situation? Does the Minister not appreciate that the vast majority of my constituents regard the Government's handling of the situation as utterly deplorable?
    Mr. Lane: I understand that that is not the case. Money has begun to be paid to Leicester, and there is automatic provision, through the rate support grant, to help deal with these problems, which are not caused by the Uganda emergency alone. We are looking forward to discussing Leicester's problems with the

    1659
    representatives in a couple of weeks' time.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Is not the rather curious view that these exiles, already unhappy and lonely, are likely to settle in rural areas remote from their friends and religion, a little inhuman? Would it not be better to accept that they will end up close to their relations, and should not financial provision be made accordingly?
    Mr. Lane: In the early stages the natural inclination of a large number of these refugees has been to go to places like Leicester, where they have friends and relations. We hope that from now on those still in the centres who may not have friends and relations may be persuaded to go more widely around the country. I see no reason, from the cases about which I have heard, why resettlement should not be carried out with good will to enable these people to have a good new life in these rural settings.
    Mr. Douglas-Mannasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for entry to the United Kingdom by Uganda Asians with non-United Kingdom passports, but with wives, children or other close relatives in the United Kingdom, have been refused at ports of entry; and to what countries applicants have been sent following such refusal.
    Mr. R. Carr: Ninety-nine Uganda Asians with close relatives in the United Kingdom have been formally refused admission. Fifteen of them—all citizens of Uganda—were sent away from the United Kingdom, eight to Uganda, five to Canada, one to Germany and one to Switzerland. The remainder are still here pending further consideration of their cases.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: The numbers involved are small and the hardship likely to be involved for these 99 is potentially immense, particularly for those returning to Uganda. Did the Home Secretary see the television programme last week about divided Ugandan families The great majority of people interviewed recognised that great hardship was likely to result from the refusal of entry to Ugandan Asians who have close relatives here and that, if allowed in, they would be likely
    1660
    to impose a burden on taxpayers. But even those who do not wish to increase the numbers of foreign-born citizens here were anxious that these Asians should be admitted. Will the Home Secretary take appropriate action as a result of that?
    Mr. Carr: As I have said before, it was made absolutely clear to the husbands and wives of these people before they left Uganda that if we temporarily took their wives and children to safety here they would have to expect to reunite in a third country and not here. Of course, they are suffering hardship, but they would have suffered even greater hardship if we had not at least taken their wives and children to safety. I am prepared to consider how we can help the wives and children to be reunited with the husbands once the husbands have been established in other countries.

    Citizenship and Nationality (Legislation)
    Mr. Wilkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now introduce comprehensive legislation to reform the British laws on citizenship and related matters.
    Mr. David Steelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will undertake a comprehensive review of the law relating to citizenship and nationality.
    Mr. R. Carr: I am considering whether any changes should be proposed in our nationality law. It is a complicated matter, and I cannot at present say what conclusions will be reached.
    Mr. Wilkinson: May I draw the Home Secretary's attention to the debate that took place yesterday in the House of Lords which bears some relevance to this problem and also, in particular, to the situation of East Europeans who came here as refugees after the Second World War and who, because—like some Commonwealth citizens—they wished to return to their country of origin, retained their original nationality but did not enjoy the same rights in Great Britain as Commonwealth citizens?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly take that into account. Of course, the sort of case that my hon. Friend has mentioned serves

    1661
    to underline that this a very complex subject, which will need a very thorough review.
    Mr. Steel: Because of the complexity of the subject the House will welcome the fact that the Home Secretary is studying the need for a review of the British Nationality Acts. We on the Liberal benches would not welcome any further piling of anomaly on anomaly in changing the existing rules.
    Mr. Carr: I take note of what the hon. Member says. It is a complicated matter and therefore any short-term answer to it is, to put it mildly, rather unlikely.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Although there may be a case for doing nothing and making no change, many people believe that such an approach would not be correct. If it is necessary to make a change will the Home Secretary therefore agree that it should be done quickly?
    Mr. Carr: There is no question of delay for delay's sake. It is a difficult matter, and therefore unlikely to be solved in a short time, however much speed we try to make about it. I can, however, say that we shall not waste any time. But it is a complicated and difficult matter, which may also involve other countries.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Is the Home Secretary advised properly by his Department about this? Those of us who are interested in the question have repeatedly pointed out to him and to the Foreign Office that the British Nationality Act 1948 is an absurd statute, in terms of today's practice. It not only inflicts difficulties and problems for people not born here; it inflicts grave hardship on British subjects who were born overseas of British parents and are now in trouble with the passport authorities, and are having their British citizenship challenged? Is it not offensive to any hon. Member who has feeling for his country that the British subject is told that he must consult the Government of Barbados or some other ex-Colony before being issued with a passport, especially where that man has served in the British Army?
    Mr. Carr: We realise that the 1948 Act has become anomalous and difficult. We are reviewing it, and the technical studies involved are well in hand.

    Police (Recruitment)
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will compare the latest police recruitment figures with those for the same month in 1971 and 1970; and if he will show the net change in the strength of the police forces as a percentage of the total strength.
    Mr. R. Carr: The number of recruits in October, 1972 was 758 compared with 703 in October, 1971, and 609 in October, 1970.
    The percentage net gain was 0·25 per cent. in 1972, 0·33 per cent. in 1971 and 0·20 per cent. in 1970.
    Mr. Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people believe that a much greater increase in recruitment is necessary to ensure that the law is adequately enforced and that people receive the protection to which they are entitled?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed, and I am glad to say that with the important exception of the Metropolitan area, where numbers are almost static, the strength of the police force throughout the country as a whole over the last two years has been rising, and is continuing to rise. I hope that this situation will continue.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is not that situation of the Metropolitan Police much more serious than that? During the current year it has lost 1,035 experienced officers, which it can ill afford to lose. What is the Home Secretary doing to make sure that experienced officers who know their own community well will stay in the force and not be replaced by raw recruits who need time to get to know the job?
    Mr. Carr: This is a difficult matter. The commissioner is giving great attention to it, and we are also giving great attention to recruiting. The commissioner is well aware of the need to do all we can to retain those officers we have. It is wrong, however, to think that the total strength of the Metropolitan force is falling. It is rising very slowly, but not nearly as fast as I would wish.

  PRICES
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if, at the next meeting with

  1663
  the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, he will discuss an extension of the present scope of the freeze.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave in answer to a Question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) on 5th December.—[Vol. 847, c. 387.]
  Mr. Meacher: If the Prime Minister is genuinely concerned about assisting low-paid workers during the freeze why do the Government's tax credit proposals give the £5,000-a-year man six times the gains of the average low-paid worker, earning under £20 a week? Is not this the usual Tory story of giving the poor the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table?
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, one of the main objectives of the tripartite talks was to help the lower-paid. If those proposals had been accepted they would have achieved the hon. Gentleman's purpose. The income, after tax, of a family earning £15 a week in 1970 has in real terms increased twice as fast as it did under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Tugendhat: Is the Prime Minister aware that so far the freeze seems to have been a considerable success in that grocery prices have remained virtually unchanged since the beginning of November—the first time that has been achieved for many years? Where there have been increases in the price of such things as meat, the increases have been more than offset by falls in the price of other commodities, such as fruit and vegetables.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and the measures that the Government took had at the time, and still have, widespread support.
  Mr. Orme: As the Prime Minister torpedoed the talks with the TUC in the final half-hour by not conceding any of the major political points made by the TUC, what purpose is there in meeting the TUC again and what approaches has the TUC made to the right hon. Gentleman about future talks?
  The Prime Minister: There is no purpose in the hon. Gentleman's trying to
  1664
  spread that myth. The whole country knows that there is no substance in it. If the hon. Gentleman accuses me of not accepting political demands, I remind him that the tripartite talks were not about political matters; they were about managing the economy of the country in a way that is acceptable to all three parties.

  BONN (VISIT)
  Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister when he hopes to be able to announce the date of his official visit to Bonn.
  The Prime Minister: I am considering my programme of visits for next year and hope to be able to announce the dates of my visit to Bonn before long.
  Mrs. Short: That is not a very illuminating reply. Does the Prime Minister intend to discuss with Chancellor Brandt the recognition of the German Democratic Republic either before or after his visit to Bonn, and will he make the announcement before or after his visit?
  The Prime Minister: This matter obviously depends on a number of factors, many of which are of great concern to the Federal Republic. It is being discussed by the members of the Western Alliance now meeting in NATO in Brussels.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: Does not the decision of the Labour Party not to send representatives to the European Parliament show that the party secretly agrees with the opinion of Herr Brandt that the terms of Britain's entry are not renegotiable? If one were serious about renegotiating the terms, would it not be logical to use all the influence available to one within the institutions of the Community?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. As is well known, I regret any decision which may be taken not to attend the European Parliament. I hope that it is still not too late for a decision to be taken that all parties represented in the House shall take part.

  POST-APOLLO PROGRAMME
  Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister if he will discuss European participation in the post-Apollo programme with the Canadian Prime Minister.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave him on 21st November.—[Vol. 846, c. 377.]
  Mr. Dalyell: Is not the programme of the European Space Agency at least four years on? As the Americans will be facing the major design, feasibility and engineering contracts by the late spring, is it desirable that we should go ahead on a national rather than a European basis?
  The Prime Minister: That is not a matter which I discussed with Mr. Trudeau.
  Mr. Dalyell: That is a very easy answer.
  Mr. Wilkinson: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the speech of the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping at the Western European Assembly today in which he pointed out that individually European nations already spend £200 million per annum on civil space projects. Is not the great thing now to get this expenditure, which is one-fifth of the American annual total, into the right institutional framework for an effective programme?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is the Government's purpose.

  PRESIDENT NIXON (MEETING)
  Sir Gilbert Longdenasked the Prime Minister if he will seek an early official meeting with the President of the United States of America.
  The Prime Minister: I would welcome such a meeting with President Nixon but I have no announcement to make at present.
  Sir Gilbert Longden: If my right hon. Friend does meet the President will he do his utmost to ensure that the NATO alliance speaks with one voice at the European Security Conference, so that the major Soviet objective, which is to disrupt the alliance, shall not be achieved?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, of course, all the matters which will be raised in the Security Conference will be discussed between the members of the alliance, either
  1666
  together or bilaterally. I very much hope that there will be an agreed policy on this matter. At the same time, the best contribution that the members of the alliance can make to the conference will be in idividual matters—as well as alliance matters.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: The question of the European Security Conference is clearly being discussed currently in the NATO talks. As the House is to have an early foreign affairs debate, will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether, after the talks with the alliance, a statement should be made in the House or information given to it so that hon. Members on both sides can consider what they want to say without having to wait for the Foreign Secretary to introduce the subject at the beginning of the debate?
  The Prime Minister: I am willing to discuss that with my right hon. Friend when he returns. The first part of the Security Conference will probably be largely concerned with procedural matters in preparation for the major conference, so it may not be possible to discuss matters of substance. I will certainly discuss it with my right hon. Friend.

  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on 24th November.
  Mr. Wintertonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official meeting with the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic on 24th November.
  Miss Joan Hallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement following his official meeting on 24th November with the Prime Minister of Eire.
  The Prime Minister: As I told hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) on 28th November, when Mr. Lynch suggested that we should meet during his visit to this country, I was glad to invite him to dinner on Friday 24th November. We discussed a number of issues of interest to both our countries, including the situation in Northern Ireland.—[Vol. 847, c. 103.]
  Mr. Duffy: Does not the Prime Minister agree that it is difficult to accept that he and Mr. Lynch could talk for three hours without each giving the other a small insight into his intentions? We know what Mr. Lynch was considering, and we know that he carried it out. Does not the Prime Minister see that the ball is now in his court and that he must be every bit as resolute, in view of the sombre but very perceptive comments made last weekend by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot accept that analysis in the least. Mr. Lynch and I have had a considerable number of meetings over the last 18 months and we have always been able to discuss very frankly the issues affecting his country and ours. We do that as Heads of two sovereign Governments. I cannot accept that the ball is in anyone's court, or that we have to show any need to be resolute. For our part, we have been carrying through our actions, politically and militarily, and I am glad that Mr. Lynch has taken the measures he thinks right for his own country.
  Mr. Winterton: I welcome the meeting between the Prime Minister and Mr. Lynch and the tougher measures that Mr. Lynch and his Government are taking against the IRA, but is my right hon. Friend aware that in some quarters it is thought that a deal may have been done between the Government and the Government of the Republic over the unity of the two parts of Ireland? If that is so, will not more bloodshed rather than less result?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot believe that that view is held in any responsible quarter. I cannot believe that anyone can be under the impression that I or any member of the Government will do what my hon. Friend describes as a deal to bring about the unity of Ireland. I hope that neither he nor any other hon. Member or hon. Friend will create suspicion of that kind, which is absolutely and entirely unjustified and which, moreover, can lead to increased danger to the security forces, and increased bloodshed.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Prime Minister aware that on my recent visit to Northern Ireland I was told by all sides that law and order had greatly deterior-
  1668
  ated? Yesterday morning I met a delegation from the Unionist Party who told me clearly that unless the party got what it wanted in the White Paper there would be civil war. Did the Prime Minister discuss overall security with Mr. Lynch and arrange for co-operation between the authorities north and south of the border?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must form his own judgment about anything that he was told by representatives of a political party in Northern Ireland, but I hope that these matters will not be exaggerated or inflamed. As a result of the talks which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is having with political parties, I believe that it will be possible to get a much greater understanding of what the Government are trying to achieve in the political sphere. On every occasion when Mr. Lynch and I met we discussed security in great detail. We are prepared to cooperate in every possible way with the Republic to improve security on the border and anywhere else, but co-operation has to come from both sides.
  Miss Joan Hall: Will the Prime Minister say what information the Government have, and whether they have taken action, about the rockets of Russian and Eastern European origin which have been used in Northern Ireland?
  The Prime Minister: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office yesterday formally asked the Soviet Embassy for the cooperation of the Soviet Government in establishing the origin of the rockets. The embassy was given full details, including details of the markings on the rockets. The Soviet Embassy undertook to report this, and I hope that we shall have the co-operation of the Soviet Government in effectively tracing the source of the rockets.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole House will not only fully accept what he has just said about a deal but, if there is to be any surprise, the surprise is that such a rumour could even have been started. The whole House endorses what the right hon. Gentleman has said. As there has also been a Press suggestion of another deal with Mr. Lynch, about which there has been a démenti by Ministers overnight, will he confirm that

  1669
  there is no suggestion of any agreement, whatever the right hon. Gentleman might have offered Mr. Lynch, to drop the case before the European Commission on Human Rights? Will he confirm that there has been no deal, as has been suggested in the Press.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I have no arrangement with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
  Captain Orr: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend and the Leader of the Opposition have said in clearing the air about the suggestion of a deal. I accept that no such deal has been done. My right hon. Friend said that he had convinced Mr. Lynch that we were doing all we could in the way of co-operation on security on the border. Is he satisfied that machinery exists for co-operation from the South in preventing incidents on the border which are causing great danger to human life?
  The Prime Minister: I should like to leave it that we discussed this matter in detail and that we are offering every co-operation. I think that Mr. Lynch has shown by the actions that he has taken in the Republic in the last 10 days that he, too, wishes to deal with the problem.
  Mr. John Mendelson: As the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with the full support of the House, is taking vigorous action against the IRA, will the Prime Minister assure the House that equally vigorous action will be taken against the extremist section of the UDA, particularly in connection with the illegal wearing of uniforms in public demonstrations?
  The Prime Minister: I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House that assurance. I have already explained, and many hon. Members accept, that for a long time on this type of legislation there was a considerable problem about the legal definition of what constitutes a uniform in this sense. The hon. Gentleman asks about the action taken. Since Operation Motorman more than 130 firearms and more than 15,000 rounds of ammunition have been seized by security forces in Protestant areas, and that shows that effective action is being
  1670
  taken there. This compares with just over 500 weapons and 27,000 rounds of ammunition taken in Catholic areas. I hope that nobody will dispute that the security forces are taking immediate action whenever they get intelligence about arms.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: I am sorry to press the Prime Minister on this, but on the question of arms, which we have raised many times, is it not a fact that a high proportion of the arms which are being carried by people wearing uniforms—if the issue of uniforms is doubtful, it can be tested in the courts—are legal arms, and that these searches are directed mainly against illegal arms?
  The Prime Minister: I think that there is a genuine difference of opinion here. I know that the right hon. Gentleman maintains that all arms should be called in. In fact, full-bore rifles have been called in and are being held in armories. The need for existing licences is regularly examined. The real problem is to get at the illegal arms, which is what the security forces are doing. The figures since Operation Motorman show the extent that this is being done, whether it be in the Protestant or the Catholic areas.

TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS (UNITED KINGDOM ACTIVITIES)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. GOODHART: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to seek to amend the laws relating to subversive organisations or organisations which support terrorism.
Mr. KILFEDDER: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he will seek powers to ban the collection of funds for the purchase of arms, ammunition and explosives for use by terrorist organisations; and (2) if he will introduce legislation to render it unlawful for anyone living or residing anywhere within the United Kingdom to be a member of the Irish Republican Army or any branch thereof.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I will, with permission, answer these Questions now.

1671
I have reviewed all these matters afresh in the light of recent developments. Certain precautions have been taken against the possibility of attempts by members of the IRA to seek sanctuary in Great Britain, but it would not be in the public interest to give details. I have already made it clear that, where appropriate, I shall make full use of the extended powers of deportation conferred on me by the Immigration Act which comes into force at the beginning of next month. Although I am not persuaded on the information at present known to me that there are grounds for seeking fresh powers from Parliament, I am determined that Great Britain should not become a haven of refuge for members of the IRA or of any other extremist organisation which resorts to violence. I shall keep the position under very close scrutiny, and shall not hesitate to ask for further powers if it seems that they are needed.
Mr. Goodhart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that many of us are concerned that now that the Governments in Dublin and Bonn are increasing, or appear to be increasing, pressure on terrorist organisations in their own countries, there is a danger that many dangerous men will seek to enter this country? Some of us are concerned lest London become the terrorist capital of the Western world.
As Lord Diplock is now carrying out a review of legal practices in Northern Ireland, to see how it can be made easier to bring to book those who plan and finance terrorism, will my right hon. Friend ask him to extend the review to the whole of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Carr: I think that we must wait and see what Lord Diplock has to say about Northern Ireland. We will certainly take into account anything he says.
I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the very real concern that there may be increased inward pressure into this country by people seeking a haven not only from Ireland but, as my hon. Friend said, from other places as well. I assure my hon. Friend that I keep the adequacy of my powers under very close scrutiny the whole time, but my view about the rightness of our present policy is one which I have come to after the closest consultaton with the authorities concerned.
Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people would look with apprehension upon any system which chose to find people guilty by association or to proscribe organisations per se and which would not just take individual cases on their merits? Is he further aware that the nature of the legislation in Northern Ireland under the Special Powers Act and of the legislation just passed in the Republic is in many ways abhorrent to what we would accept as the standard British practice of having to prove a person guilty of an offence? Therefore, whilst one does not want this country to be a haven for murderers or thugs, wherever they come from and whoever they are—whether they be Catholic or Protestant, Jew or Moslem—we have our own traditional liberties to protect, which we would not want to lose.
Mr. Carr: I am sure that the sort of considerations which the hon. Gentleman has adduced would always be taken into very close account by any Home Secretary in any Government of whatever party. Hitherto, we have found, not only on libertarian grounds but on grounds of security of our own public, that our present practice of not proscribing organisations as such has been the better one.
Mr. McMaster: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great concern felt in Northern Ireland arising from recent answers to questions by the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and others, to the effect that neither the leaders of the IRA who have been invited to this country nor members of the IRA can be restricted or charged for any offence in this country, despite the fact that they have claimed responsibility for the cold-blooded murder of over 100 British soldiers and many hundreds of civilians, even women and children, by their activities in Northern Ireland, and despite the fact that both the Government of the Republic and the Government of Northern Ireland themselves have been able to introduce legislation to proscribe such organisations?
Mr. Carr: I do not draw that deduction from the answers I have heard given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister or by any other member of the Government. I should point out, however, that if anyone who has committed a

1673
crime in Northern Ireland under the law in Northern Ireland, and has had an arrest warrant issued against him, comes to this country that warrant can be backed and can be enforced by the police against him while he is still here.
Mr. Thorpe: I do not dissent from the general principles enunciated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), but would not the Home Secretary agree that he has recourse to the courts in any case where there is likely to be a breach of the peace? Is it not also the case that anyone who belongs to the IRA and subscribes to its aims prima facie may well fall into that category?
Mr. Carr: There are several powers, but I think that the powers to keep out and to get rid of undesirable people are the powers which matter most. They are already not inconsiderable but will be further extended from 1st January next.
Sir F. Bennett: My right hon. Friend mentioned deportation. How effective is deportation in practice in view of the fact that anyone deported to Dublin can return straight back to England via another port of entry? My right hon. Friend has not mentioned the collection of funds. Is this to remain legal from the point of view of funds collected for the purchase of arms?
Mr. Carr: On the question about offence caused by the collection of funds, hitherto we have taken the view—I still take it—that trying to make such collection of funds illegal would be difficult to enforce, quite apart from anything else. There are, however, possibilities even there under certain laws, in that if the collection of funds is offensive in certain ways there are statutes under which action might be taken.
There is already power to prevent entry, and it will be stronger after 1st January. I assure the House that we are aware that there are undesirable people wishing to come here. But when they do come here, and are found to be here, there is power to ask them and to get them to leave, and, as I have said, that power will be stronger as from 1st January.
Mr. John Fraser: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that he will have adequate resources at the ports of entry to make sure that these people do not enter the United Kingdom? Is he certain that he has adequate resources inside the United Kingdom to deal with people who might be members of the IRA but hold British citizenship and therefore could not under existing law be debarred from entering the country, but who should nevertheless be watched carefully while they are here?
Mr. Carr: To say that one has adequate resources is difficult. Whatever problem one has, no doubt one would always like more resources than one has to deal with it. I have considered this matter very carefully with the Commissioner, who is particularly responsible, and we are satisfied as much as we can be at the moment that our resources are reasonably adequate and that our powers are not only adequate but of the kind that we would choose to have, at least to meet the situation as it exists. Of course, I realise that the situation may change, and that is why I have promised the House that I will watch it continually.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Motion on the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order, until 7 p.m.
Afterwards, Second Reading of the Concorde Aircraft Bill.
TUESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Supply (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion relating to Industrial Policy.
Motions on the Local Government (Northern Ireland) Orders.
WEDNESDAY, 13TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Fair Trading Bill.

1675
Remaining stages of the National Theatre and Museum of London Bill and of the Post Office (Borrowing) Bill.
THURSDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Debate on Foreign Affairs, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (No. 1) Order.
FRIDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 18TH DECEMBER—Consideration of Private Members' motions until seven o'clock.
Afterwards, consideration of procedure motions.
It may be convenient, Mr. Speaker, for the House to know that, subject to progress of business, it is hoped to propose that the House should adjourn for Christmas on Friday, 22nd December and resume on Monday, 22nd January.
Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I asked last week about a statement on steel. Will he confirm that there will be a White Paper on the steel industry before Christmas, and that it will be definitive and will go into the statistical and planning points which were discussed across the Floor of the House last week?
Secondly, can he say when the report of the Hardman Committee on the dispersal of Government staffs is to be made available, because the House I am sure will want to take note of it and to debate it?
Thirdly, has the right hon. Gentleman noticed on the Order Paper a motion by the Opposition urging that the Concorde Aircraft Bill, to be debated on Monday, should be referred to a Select Committee?
[After Second Reading of the Concorde Aircraft Bill, to move, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.]
Is he aware that we have put down the motion not in a spirit of wanting to hold up the Bill—we have made it clear that we want to facilitate it in every possible way—but because we believe that the House has the right and the duty to get more facts on this question than are being made available?
Finally, when is the Coal Industry Bill to be available?
Mr. Prior: I promised that a statement on the steel industry would be made before Christmas. I will try to see that it is as full as possible. I have never promised a White Paper, and I stick to what I have said in the last three weeks.
Secondly, I understand from Sir Henry Hardman that he is near the closing stages of the preparation of his report, and I take note of the right hon. Gentleman's wish for debate.
Thirdly, the Coal Industry Bill will be available after the weekend, and it is the present intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement about coal on Monday.
Finally, I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Concorde Aircraft Bill. My present intention is to propose that the Committee stage should be taken in Standing Committee in the normal way, but that is a matter for the decision of the House on Monday.
Mr. Harold Wilson: We agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Concorde Aircraft Bill. But, on the question of the steel industry, is he aware that some of his answers are liable to make the House suspicious of what is going on, although no doubt that is the last thing that he would want? But if that is what lie does want, then he is succeeding. The House understood last week that there would be a definitive statement. I asked then whether it would contain figures of the production and investment plans and so on, and he undertook to look into the point and said that he would probably contact me, which I do not think he has done. In view of the widespread suspicion that there is to be merely a holding statement—we have had such statements time and again in this Parliament—will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be before Christmas, so that we can debate it soon after Christmas, a full statement, whether in a White Paper or by other means, give the fullest possible details about steel capacity, the investment programme and regional plans?
Mr. Prior: I made it plain to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be a definitive statement. It was not intended that it should be a holding statement. I never gave any guarantee about there being a

1677
White Paper, but I recognise the interest of the House in this important subject, and I thought I had gone out of my way to try to give it this information at the earliest possible moment.
Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my right hon. Friend about Tuesday's business? I understood that the Supply Day debate would be on shipbuilding, shipping and so on. It is most important that the House should know in detail whether it will be on shipbuilding, shipping and marine engineering. In particular, if I may say so with modesty, I want to make it perfectly plain to my Government that I hope we shall have a policy which the shipbuilders, the shipping people, the employees and those in the Conservative Party who want to see employment on Tyneside and other areas can put fully into effect. Therefore, I want to know whether the debate will be on shipbuilding, shipping and marine engineering, so that we cannot have a far-flung debate, which would enable the Government to skip out of saying what our industrial policy on these very important industries will be.
Mr. Prior: It falls to the Opposition to put down the motion, and it is for them to decide the business.
Mr. Harold Wilson: To help save the time of the House and to reassure the right hon. Lady, may I ask the Leader of the House to take note, if he is not already aware, that the motion we are tabling today specifically refers to the shipbuilding industry, among others, though it is not exclusively related to shipbuilding and machine tools, which are mentioned. In view of the hon. Lady's many requests to her own Front Bench for satisfaction, we are delighted to feel that she is getting that satisfaction from us.
Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the dismay caused by his statement that we axe to have an extraordinarily long recess, until 22nd January, which can only mean that the Government have already decided to extend the 90-day wage freeze into the further period advocated in the Act? The right hon. Gentleman has not yet announced when we are to discuss phase 2 of the freeze period. If he works out the dates he will see that if we are to
1678
return on 22nd January and there is to be on 5th February the introduction of phase 2, there is not likely to be any lengthy discussion in the House, but merely an announcement from the Government. Can we now take it that they have no intention other than to extend the 90 days by a further 50 days?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should not read into a fairly straightforward statement about the length of the recess any details about Government policies. All I can tell him is that the recess covers 30 clear days, which, to my regret, is rather less than the average Christmas Recess over the period since the war, but, to my delight, rather more than the average for the past 10 years.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Does my right hon. Friend recall the assurances that we should have a full opportunity to discuss developments in the Common Market? As it was announced yesterday that our Government had agreed to a Common Market budget of £1,850 million, which is considerably more than the estimate for 1977 in the White Paper, should not we have at least a statement on the Common Market budget and why we agreed to it, and a full debate on the reasons behind it?
Mr. Prior: I think that some of the matters raised by my hon. Friend would be in order in the debate on foreign affairs next week.
Mr. George Cunningham: With regard to the procedure motion which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned for Monday week and the motions to give effect to some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on parliamentary Questions, will the right hon. Gentleman say how the Government intend so to phrase the motion that it will be possible for the House to discuss the Committee's recommendations on the fixing of Questions by Ministers as well as changes in other procedural matters?
Mr. Prior: One of the procedural matters that it is proposed we should discuss on Monday week is the Select Committee's report on Question Time. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Written Answer yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton). I shall be

1679
putting down the necessary motions in a day or two.
Mr. Grylls: When will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for an early debate on the Government's very progressive White Paper on education, issued yesterday, which I am sure we should like to consider?
Mr. Prior: I am certain that the House will want an early opportunity to debate this important White Paper, and I hope very much that we can debate it soon after our return from the recess.
Mr. George Grant: The whole House will have welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that a Coal Industry Bill will be presented next week. Will it be debated before the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Prior: Subject to the business of the House, I hope very much that we shall be able to debate it on Second Reading before Christmas.
Mr. Crouch: When may we have an opportunity to discuss the proposed new parliamentary building? The Europeans are already laying the foundations for strengthening the European Parliament. Does not my right hon. Friend think that the strengthening is required here, and that we need an extension as soon as possible?
Mr. Prior: I agree that the problems of accommodation grow more acute each day, and that it would be appropriate to find time within the not-too-distant future for a debate on this very important subject.
Mr. Michael Cocks: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider Motion No. 60, signed by over 100 Members on both sides, urging the Government to ensure that official poll cards are ready for the first elections to the new authorities?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that official poll cards are issued for the first elections of the local authorities to be held in 1973.]
May we have a statement about the matter before Christmas, because such cards will be invaluable not only in helping people to exercise their democratic rights but in familiarising them with the new electoral set-up?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that for the first elections the issue of official poll cards should not be prescribed but should be allowed at local discretion. Accordingly, provision will be made in the local election rules, which my right hon. Friend will soon lay before Parliament.
Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the inadequacy of time devoted to Northern Ireland matters in this House, but we appreciate his difficulties. Can he say, in particular, whether we shall know before we rise the date of the Northern Ireland poll and have the regulation to bring it into effect? Shall we have time to debate the report of the chief constable?
Mr. Prior: I am not aware that Northern Ireland does not have enough time for debate on the Floor of the House. I think that even my hon. and gallant Friend and his colleagues will admit that on the whole we have been more than generous with Northern Ireland time on the Floor of the House in the past six weeks. But I have noted what he said about the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of the date of the border poll, and I shall convey that to my right hon. Friend. I think that we should know a little more about it before Christmas.
Mr. Michael Foot: To return to the question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward Taylor), does the Leader of the House appreciate that it would be quite unsatisfactory to suggest that the question of the British Government's contribution to the Community budget could be settled in a general foreign affairs debate dealing with all matters? Therefore, will he tell the House now—he must be fully informed on the matter—under what provision, and when, he proposes to ask for the approval of the House for the suggestions?
Mr. Prior: There will be ample opportunities to debate European matters over the coming months, and undoubtedly the budget will come up on one of those occasions.
Mr. Harold Wilson: Further to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), will

1681
the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the precise proposal for the House to vote a budget? Over hundreds of years we have had our own methods clearly set out with the fullest safeguards for the voting of a national budget here. Now we are presented with a bill for the Community budget far exceeding what the House was told two years ago. What procedure will be followed? Will there be appropriation procedures, or what? It is not good enough to say that there will be debates—Adjournment debates, foreign affairs debates. Will he tell us what the Government have decided about voting the budget with the authority of the House?
Mr. Prior: Many of the procedures, it was hoped, and I still hope, can be discussed by the joint committee on procedural matters that we hope to set up. As soon as we can set it up, we can get down to discussing these matters.
Mr. Marten: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that we want to discuss these matters on the Floor of the House? We are not concerned with ad hoc or any other ad committees; we want to discuss them here. Is he aware of increasing anxiety among those of us who are interested in the country's—[Interruption.]—I have not finished yet—who are interested in the country's position in the Common Market that we are not getting the draft directives that are around and should be made available to hon. Members so that we can debate in good time before any decisions are taken?
Mr. Prior: I shall not take it from my hon. Friend or anyone else that I am not interested in my country. But I recognise that there is keen interest in having debates on the Floor of the House. That is one of the matters that could be discussed in the ad hoc committee on procedural matters, and then we could decide how best items can be brought to the Floor of the House.
Mr. McBride: Welsh Labour Members fear that the Government have decided to abandon the discussion of Welsh affairs on the Floor of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman say when a day will be devoted to a discussion of Welsh affairs? His right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will tell him that a day is owed to Welsh Members. In view
1682
of the matters affecting the Welsh economy, in which steel is an important constituent part, will he say when that will occur?
Mr. Prior: I recognise the interest of the hon. Gentleman and of his hon. Friends. I hope very much to arrange a debate on Welsh affairs fairly soon, or very soon after we return from the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Buchan: Has the Leader of the House seen the motion on the Chrysler Corporation signed by myself and many of my hon. Friends?
[That this House, conscious of the vital importance of the British motor-car industry to the British economy, concerned that decisions affecting it are increasingly being made outside this country, and mindful of assurances given by successive Governments that the British interest in Chrysler, United Kingdom should be preserved, calls on the Government to take immediate action to prevent this further United States takeover.]
In view of the serious concern expressed on both sides yesterday and the frivolous statement of the Minister for Industrial Development, may we have an early debate on the issue and the related issue of the future of the motor car industry in Britain?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir. I listened to the exchanges yesterday and I thought that my right hon. Friend gave a very satisfactory explanation.
Mr. Heffer: When shall we have a statement on the question of the bridge disaster at Reading, and when shall we have a debate on the whole issue of safety in the construction industry?
Mr. Prior: I have consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, as I promised last week. He is awaiting the final report from the Murrison Committee on the basis of the design and the method of erection of large steel box girder bridges. After the report has been received I shall ask him whether he can make a statement to the House.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When do the Government intend to announce the names of those of our colleagues who will serve on the European Parliament? Will it be before Christmas, so that at

1683
least their wives and families can enjoy having them, knowing that they will not see much of them afterwards?
Mr. Prior: The announcement will be made in the fairly near future, and I certainly hope before Christmas.
Mr. J. T. Price: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information about the large number of Boundary Commission reports which are reported to be in the pipeline? Will any of them be taken before Christmas? Will good notice be given, and will they be debated at a reasonable time? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am anxious to oppose certain Boundary Commission orders relating to my part of Lancashire, and that if they are taken in the middle of the night or at some other odd time, such as late on a Friday afternoon, going through on the nod, just as arrangements for the business going on in the yard outside were carried on behind the scenes, many hon. Members will feel that justice has not been done? May we have some information? These matters are important to many hon. Members, and we do not want to have them merely pushed under the carpet at an odd time when there is no one here.
Mr. Prior: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is talking about the district Boundary Commissions. I have noted what he said. Their recommendations certainly will not be debated next week, but they will have to debated before very long.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would my right hon. Friend revert to the question of our procedures relating to Europe and particularly the European budget? Could he set a deadline concerning the question of co-operation with the Opposition, because if there is to be no such co-operation the Government will surely have to give their own unilateral decision. Time is getting short. Could my right hon. Friend tell us when that unilateral decision will be made?
Mr. Prior: I still hope that the House as a whole will arrive at sensible procedures for discussing these very important matters.
Mr. Mendelson: Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's statement about a future statement on the steel industry, will he remember that in the steel areas there is a growing demand for the Government to live up to their responsibilities? Does he recall that during his predecessor's term of office an undertaking was given that because the Government are directly responsible, and the matter was delayed to allow the Steel Corporation to submit proposals to the Government, the Government are obliged to give an undertaking that the statement will contain all the future details concerning investment programmes so that the responsibility of the Government may be clearly seen, and that any attempt to say that details will still be left to some other body will be wholly unacceptable to the House?
Mr. Prior: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said. I note that the House wants as full a statement as can be given. I shall do my best to see that that is carried out.
Mrs. Renée Short: Has the Leader of the House been informed that yesterday it was necessary to call the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health and Social Security before an Expenditure Committee of this House to try to obtain from him an explanation concerning the long delay in the ministerial reply to the Report on Private Practice? Is he further aware that the reply we received indicated that we are not likely to receive this much before Easter? As the report was published and available to the public and the House on 29th March 1972, this would represent an unprecedented delay of one year before the House receives the reply from the Department. Does the right hon. Gentleman not think this is a scandalous way to treat a Select Committee of this House? Can he say what steps he took when I raised the matter with him a fortnight ago during business questions and what action he intends to take to see that the House is treated in the correct manner by the Department?
Mr. Prior: The subject of this report is highly controversial. I knew that the Permanent Secretary to the Department of Health and Social Security was being called in front of the Committee again.

1685
I knew that the hon. Member would obtain those explanations from the Permanent Secretary. I have noted what the hon. Lady said about the length of time.
Mr. Urwin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, having conceded that there will be a debate on Welsh Affairs at a fairly early date, he has almost accepted the responsibility to give time for a similar debate on the matters concerning the Northern Region, as we, too, are involved in the intractable problem of unemployment in the steel, shipbuilding and coal industries? One bears in mind that Wales and Scotland have their own separate days for Questions in addition to the lengthy period of time allocated to Northern Ireland Questions.
Mr. Prior: That shows the sort of difficulty one gets into. The Welsh have always had a special day on the Floor of the House for their affairs. I am fulfilling an undertaking on that point. The hon. Gentleman knows that coal will be discussed under the Coal Industry Bill. I have promised a statement on steel. The motion for debate on Tuesday on the Opposition Supply Day will give an opportunity to debate the other matters to which he referred.

CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (SPEECH)
Mr. Speaker: I have a Ruling to give.
I will now give the Ruling which I undertook to make in response to a number of questions asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) yesterday.
The right hon. Member first asked me whether a Minister was free to quote out of context advice received from an official without laying on the Table a full record of the conversation or other context within which the question was made. To this I would reply that if the advice quoted is extracted from a document, the rule of the House is that the document should be laid on the Table, if it can be done without injury to the public interest. The authority for that is Erskine May, page 421. I know of no instance, however, where this rule has ever been applied to a conversation, and I do not think that such an application would be easy in practice.
1686
The right hon. Gentleman then asked whether Members were free to table Questions to the Chancellor on any advice which he might have received from the Department of Customs and Excise. The rules of Questions are a good deal more restrictive than the rules of debate, and there are many things which can be said during the course of a speech which cannot be included in the terms of a Question. Questions relating to discussions between Ministers and their official advisers are among those types of Questions cited in Erskine May, page 328, which Ministers have consistently refused to answer on grounds of public policy and which are therefore not in order.
The right hon. Gentleman's third question related to the powers of Select Committees. It is the duty of a Select Committee to interpret its own order of reference, and it is not therefore for me to rule whether any Committee could or could not seek from the Chairman of the Board of Customs and Excise evidence of the type which the right hon. Gentleman described.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's fourth and final question, I can only say that there is nothing in itself disorderly in the communication to the House by a Minister of the advice which he has received from any quarter. Whether it is prudent or desirable that he should do so is a matter upon which he must make up his mind in each particular case.
Mr. Healey: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. for your Rulings, which are clear and, if I may say so, very consonant with my own understanding of what the situation was.
I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the situation as you have described it gives a very unfair advantage to the Minister in the House in that you have made it clear that the Minister is free, if he thinks it proper—the House might well have its own views on that question—to quote anything said to him by an official adviser out of context, and the House is in no position to ask any questions of a follow-up nature to discover whether the account given by the Minister is fair and calculated to inform the House properly of the whole situation which is under debate. Could you give the House any guidance whether there is any means by which we might seek to bring the rights

1687
of Members more into line with the rights which Ministers have according to your Ruling?
The second question I would put to you is this. Mr. Deputy Speaker, when this matter arose, referred to it as a question of etiquette. I wonder whether you, Mr. Speaker, with your deep experience of these matters, can recall any previous occasion when a Minister has sought in a difficult matter to skulk behind the skirts of civil servants in a situation in which it is impossible for the House to verify or confirm the statements he made as being truly representative of the views of the person quoted. Here there is a question of propriety not only for the House but concerning relations between Ministers and their civil servants.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has put two questions to me. With regard to the first, it is possible to pursue the matter in debate. There is nothing out of order in pursuing the matter when a right hon. Gentleman has decided to refer to any advice given. It can be pursued in debate. So far as the other matter is concerned, I shall not comment on the question of etiquette. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will carefully consider my Ruling because there are certain things to be read between the lines.
Mr. Harold Wilson: We note what you said, Mr. Speaker. We shall certainly study it to see what is to be read between the lines. We note that the matter is open for debate although not for Questions.
In view of the clarity of your Ruling, would it perhaps not be right that the Leader of the House should undertake to report your Ruling and this exchange to the Prime Minister to see whether, if the House has no redress in this matter, it should not be dealt with for the future by a Prime Ministerial directive to Ministers?
Mr. Prior: I should like to consider what the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which you announced this afternoon, and also to the right hon. Gentleman's comments.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I take it that it is not a point of debate about my Ruling.
Mr. Dalyell: A point of questioning, searching after truth.
Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that, under your Ruling, if it is considered by the Secretary of State for Defence, for example, "prudent and desirable to do so" he may freely quote the views of the Chiefs of Staff, senior Cabinet Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and other officers? Is that to be the position from now on?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Member must take my Ruling as I have given it. I shall not deal with any hypothetical question.

MEMBERS (INFLUENZA INJECTIONS)
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was arranged that those who wished to have them could have 'flu injections on Wednesday. May I ask why it was that without any prior notification the firm concerned or whoever was responsible for the arrangements to give the injections at ten minutes past eleven on Wednesday morning telephoned to say that the injections would not be given until the following Monday? This was very inconvenient. It do not know about the rest of the House, but it happened to very inconvenient for me.
If people are kind enough to make this arrangement, or if they are remunerated for doing so, and it is published in The Whip inviting hon. Members to turn up for their injections between 11 a.m. and 3 p.m., it does not seem right that the firm should be allowed to telephone at ten minutes past eleven and put off the arrangement until the following Monday. I am not involved myself, but I should be annoyed if I were to get 'flu and be unable to take part in the debate on shipbuilding next Tuesday.
Mr. Speaker: Without accepting any responsibility, may I express my regret to the hon. Lady and hope that she will not contract 'flu. I shall go into the matter and see whether there is anything that I can do about it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [3RD ALLOTTED DAY],—considered.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (REPORTS)
  4.12 p.m.
  Mr. Edmund Dell: I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament and of the Treasury Minute on those Reports (Command Paper No. 5126).
  I am sure that the whole House will join me in expressing regret that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) is not able to move the motion. I am sure that we all wish to send him and his family our best wishes for a speedy return to good health. During the last Session of Parliament the Public Accounts Committee was stimulated, guided, instructed and amused by my right hon. Friend. Witnesses who appeared before the PAC may sometimes have been surprised—pleasantly I hope—when, after a lengthy and penetrating inquiry, he suddenly expressed the committee's complete and sympathetic understanding, but that was in line with what he said during the debate on the Report of the PAC last year and I shall read what he said because I am sure that if he were here today he would make the same point about the functions of the committee.
  My right hon. Friend said:
  "Our function is to encourage foresight and care in officials, not to discourage flexibility because of the feeling, if something goes wrong, that they would have been wiser to stick to more staid, if less justifiable, rules.…Members of the Committee will want the Civil Service to know that, in judging what has happened when things have gone wrong, we place ourselves emphatically in the minds of the officials themselves, not with a view to discouraging flexible initiatives, not with a view to encouraging the play-safe attitude which can always ensure that someone does not come before the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 707.]
  We know my right hon. Friend to be the most practical philosopher of them all. I should refer to him as a philosopher-king were it not for his well-known democratic sentiments.
  1690
  I should like on behalf of the Committee to express thanks to the Comptroller and Auditor-General, Sir David Pitblado, and to the Exchequer and Audit Department from which the PAC draws its strength and is enabled to get through its very considerable body of work. It is their assistance and the fact that they have access to the papers of the Government which ensures that the PAC's proceedings take the form not of a loose exchange of untested ideas, statements and allegations, but of an inquiry into questions of administration and sometimes, though now, fortunately, rarely, propriety, where the facts and statements under discussion are substantiated, or may have to be substantiated, by the actual records of Government.
  May I also express the Committee's thanks to Mr. Phelps, the Treasury Officer of Accounts, who was always commandingly in attendance, and to Mr. G. C. Eccleston who has just retired as Clerk to the PAC, and may I extend a welcome to Mr. J. L. Rose, the new Clerk of Committee.
  Membership of the Committee seems to have a remarkable effect on the personal prospects of hon. Gentlemen opposite. In the middle of the year two Conservative Members—the hon. Members for Leicester, South-West (Mr. Tom Boardman) and Woking (Mr. Onslow)—were whipped into the Government and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury became the Chief Secretary. This, I take it, means that there is an emphatic demand from hon. Gentlemen opposite for membership of the PAC, and it is no doubt due to this extraordinary competition for a place on the PAC that this year the Committee is being set up so late.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Committee still has not been set up, but I hope that it will be tonight. This is later than at any time while I have been a Member of the House and, I suspect for many years past, and this has the inevitable and serious effect of disrupting the programme that we prepare for ourselves.
  There has been a slight change this year in the Committee's practice in reporting to the House. There used to be three reports, the first dealing with excess

  1691
  votes, the second dealing with virement—a word which I always found difficult to understand, and it has been abolished just at the point at which I began to understand what it was—and a third report, which was our substantial report, a bulky document, the publication of which was authorised in July, with eventual publication in the middle of the Summer Recess, perhaps in August or September. It was a bulky volume with which hon. Members no doubt amused themselves during the summer holidays.
  We felt that that was perhaps asking a little too much, even from our enthusiastic readers. We have this year adopted the practice of dividing our substantial report and publishing our Second Report as it was, which was authorised in May when the House was still sitting, and our Third Report which appeared at about the same time as our substantial report used to appear. I hope that that will be for the convenience of the House and I hope, too, that it will be the practice of the PAC in future to publish as we decide.
  I do not intend to go through the First, Second and Third Reports of the PAC. They are there for the House to read. I propose, instead, to choose a theme which unites certain aspects of these reports, but before coming to that I should like to refer to one item which falls rather outside the theme that I shall take, and that is our reference to the Commonwealth Development Corporation.
  Here we find the PAC perhaps in an unusual rôle of stimulant of public expenditure. I was interested to receive the Treasury Minute which comments on that part of our report. It says on page 4:
  "Because of the general pressure on the Aid Programme it has not been possible to increase Government advances to the CDC to the level mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Committee's Report".
  I regret that. It then goes on to say in the final paragraph of that section of the Treasury Minute:
  "The Government and CDC believe as a result of their joint discussions, now complete, on both future allocations and the improvement of arrangements for concessionary finance, CDC is in a position to extend its investments in projects of high development value and to extend its operations in those areas where they can be of particular benefit."
  1692
  I was glad to see that response from the Government to what the PAC was recommending, particularly because the PAC was acting in what might be regarded as an unusual rôle.
  The theme which I take in moving the motion is the oversight exercised by the PAC on Government investment in industry. Before coming to my theme, I should declare an interest. I was a Minister when some of the matters covered in the report were the responsibility of the last Government. It is perhaps a curious feature of the practices of this House that ex-Ministers can find themselves members of the PAC and turning a critical retrospective gaze on matters for which they may have been responsible. Here we have the poacher turned gamekeeper. I am reminded of the passage from the "Mikado" where Koko says:
  "A man cannot cut off his own head"
  and Pooh-bah replies:
  "A man might try."
  I have "tried" to the best of my ability as a member of the PAC, and I assure the Government that with the passage of time we are getting deeper and deeper into their records.
  The relevance of what the PAC has to say about Government investment in industry is enhanced by the events of the last year. In the debate on the PAC last year, on 2nd December 1971, the Chief Secretary, as he now is, who was then the Financial Secretary, said:
  "The investment grant scheme has now terminated…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd December, 1971; Vol. 827, c. 763.]
  But this year we have had the Industry Act 1972. The policy of the Government seems to have changed. I make that remark in that way, tentative rather than categoric, to avoid any suggestion that as acting spokesman of the PAC today I am dealing with policy. The PAC does not concern itself with policy directly but with the administration of policy and with the propriety of public expenditure.
  Many times during the passage of the Industry Act 1972 the Government appealed to the PAC as a protector of the public interest. The Second and Third Reports show the PAC at work in defending the public interest. I will give the House a few brief examples. With

  1693
  reference to the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, we emphasised the importance of adequate vetting and monitoring procedures. I am glad to see that in the Treasury Minute the Government accept that. With regard to the Sugar Board, we emphasised the importance of efficiency. In the Second Report at paragraph 59 we said:
  "There is a clear need, particularly in view of the proposed entry to the European Economic Community. to ensure that sugar is produced by the most efficient methods. They trust, therefore, that the inquiry will produce proposals to this end and that reorganisation will follow promptly."
  I was interested to see the Treasury Minute's response to the recommendation of the PAC, which at page 6 reads, rather peculiarly, as follows:
  "Full account will be taken of the Committee's view that there is a clear need to ensure that sugar is produced by the most efficient methods."
  I am interested in the words, "full account will be taken". I know of many areas of policy where efficiency is far from the last word to be said on any question, but here I should have thought that efficiency is rather important. I wonder why the Government phrase their response in that odd fashion?
  We considered the affairs of the Atomic Energy Authority. We were limited because the Government are reviewing their policy. There has been the Vinter Report which we have not seen. There is the Secretary of State's statement of 8th August 1972, and now there is a further review in progress. We understand that the final decisions will be reached in about a year. The PAC must look at these matters further. It will wish to penetrate and understand the whole of the argument about the administration of atomic energy policy.
  One of the PAC's comments that has been most commented on since the report appeared was about assistance to shipbuilding. In the Third Report at paragraph 13 we said:
  "Your Commtitee are concerned that many millions of pounds of public funds provided for distribution to the ship-building industry through the SIB have been spent for purposes which had little to do directly with improving the industry's ability to compete in world markets."
  We are subsequently told that as a matter of policy—this is at page 6 of the
  1694
  Treasury Minute—one of the purposes of Government assistance to industry is to support employment. I welcome that statement. I also welcome the fact that the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry agree that further assistance from public funds should be used as effectively as possible for the development of a viable ship-building industry.
  The PAC commented on two Governments' experience with the RB211 aero-engine. We welcome the acceptance by the Department of Trade and Industry and by the Treasury of the need to assess the potential cost against the resources and commitments of the company. The lesson to be learnt is that when a Government embark on the financing of advanced technology—and not just then—they cannot rely on their commitment being limited by a contract such as a launching aid contract. They must understand the full responsibility that they are undertaking. That is a point which the Government now clearly express as their own view.
  Having indicated the areas of the report that bear on my theme, I refer the House particularly to an answer from Sir Anthony Part, the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Trade and Industry, made to the Committee on 8th March 1972. In the answer to Question 1548, he spoke of the Government's relations with firms in which they invest. To summarise what he said—I accept that a summary cannot do full justice to so long and important a reply—he said that the Government did not wish to disturb or confuse the responsibility of directors of assisted companies. Secondly, he said that the Government must be able to satisfy themselves in what are frequently very difficult areas of policy as to what exactly is happening in a company. It is not, of course, clear that these two points are always easily compatible, which is a fact of which the Department of Trade and Industry is aware.
  Sir Anthony went on to say, quoting an answer which the then Chief Secretary had given on the previous day, that no one should assume, unless the Government commit themselves to that extent, that Government investment implies that the Government accept liabilities for a company's debts. These are all matters

  1695
  which the Treasury, the DTI and the PAC will wish to watch carefully.
  The question which arises from these reports, and out of the comments which I have briefly summarised, is whether the House is satisfied that the PAC, as it now exists and operates within its present terms of reference, has the power and capacity to discharge its functions adequately.
  The power of the PAC comes from the fact, first, that it has the aid of the Comptroller and Auditor-General and the Exchequer and Audit Department, and, second, from the fact that it inquires into specific matters.
  There are, I think, two levels at which this House can control the Executive, if it will. The first is by the great debate on policy on the Floor of the House, and the second is by asking, through a Select Committee, the specific question—why do the Government expect to achieve their objectives by this means? In other words, it is to examine the adequacy of the proposed means to the proposed objectives, to query not the objectives but the means.
  This is what the PAC does retrospectively and with hindsight, but it does not ask every such question. For example, it does not enter, in a general way, into the adequacy of the proposed means to a Department's total objectives. It limits itself to specific examples. It does not ask such questions prospectively at the time of action, at any rate where there is a new departure.
  Parallel with the Public Accounts Committee, there is, of course, the Expenditure Committee, which has now presented the House with a number of valuable reports, and the House now has experience of the way in which the Expenditure Committee is working.
  Perhaps I might quote the order of reference of the Expenditure Committee:
  "To consider any papers on public expenditure presented to this House and such of the Estimates as may seem fit to the Committee and in particular to consider how if at all, the policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the Estimates may be carried out more economically, and to examine the form of the papers and of the Estimates presented to this House."
  I should perhaps say that I informed the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Sir H.
  1696
  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid), the new Chairman of the Expenditure Committee, that I would be referring to that Committee. However, there is a meeting of the Committee at this moment and he asked me to present his apologies to the House; he did me the courtesy of saying that he would read what I said.
  What I want to emphasise in the terms of reference of the Expenditure Committee is these words:
  "…in particular to consider how, if at all, the policies implied in the figures of expenditure and in the Estimates may be carried out more economically."
  That is looking prospectively—a form of activity which is parallel to, closely resembles, what the PAC is intended to do retrospectively. But, of course, the Expenditure Committee is also concerned with policy, and its order of reference permits it so to be.
  It does not have the assistance of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and this might be a matter of debate—but it might be difficult, one can see, to have the Comptroller and Auditor-General working with a Committee which might use its information to query policy and not just means. Inevitably there is some overlap, or perhaps some complementarity, between the work of the PAC and that of the Expenditure Committee.
  I should like to refer particularly to a very valuable report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, "Public Money in the Private Sector". The Committee inquired retrospectively, as a basis presumably for the comments that it wished to make on future policy, into the RB211 affair and into assistance to the shipbuilding industry. Indeed, permanent secretaries were rushing hotfoot from one committee to the other to give evidence on what were not very dissimilar questions.
  The question which arises out of this is whether the House is sure that, either directly or through Select Committees, we are prepared sufficiently to press these two specific questions on the Executive. First, is departmental administration adequate to its task? Second—this question to the Government—why do they think that this specific expenditure in industry which is now proposed will achieve their objective?

  1697
  Of course, the PAC does in effect deal with the second of these questions where it is inquiring retrospectively into a continuing policy. Thus, for example, by what we have to say in these reports on the Covent Garden Authority, on the Sugar Board accounts, on the Atomic Energy Authority, on the new investigation we are now undertaking into the exploitation of North Sea gas and oil—by inquiring retrospectively, we say also something of what we think is the way policy should be administered in future. But where there is a new departure, this cannot operate, because this would be outside the Committee's terms of reference.
  Is this sort of question to the Government—"Why do you think that this expenditure will achieve your objectives?"—a question for the Expenditure Committee which is a policy committee and may in this respect be handicapped from pressing that sort of question, apart from being handicapped by not having the assistance of the Exchequer and Audit Department? Is it a question for the PAC, with extended terms of reference, or is it a question for nobody in this House other than Ministers until the PAC inquires retrospectively into specific cases?
  I am sure that the last thing that the PAC would want is to discourage initiative or flexibility or to instil a timid attitude which feared responsibility. It is in that connection that our remarks on Section 332 of the Companies Act were made. This was intended to be helpful to Government and I believe that it has been taken to be helpful.
  I was glad to see these words on page 11 of the Treasury Minute:
  "As regards Section 332, the Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry fully accept the conclusions of the Committee. The Department are making a renewed examination of the implications of the Section and some notes of guidance have already been circulated to officials."
  I refer to that to emphasise once more that it is the wish of the PAC to be helpful in this area.
  Nevertheless, the question arises whether the House is adequately prepared and set up, through the terms of reference of these Select Committees, to deal with the specific types of question to which I refer. I should like to mention some remarks made on the work of
  1698
  the PAC by a very experienced and senior official of Government, now retired, Sir Richard Clarke, who was Permanent Secretary to the Ministry of Technology and who has discussed the functions of the PAC in his series of lectures, "New Trends in Government", particularly on pages 12 and 13.
  Sir Richard says, first, that there should be a regular report on the efficiency of a Department's financial procedures and on what is being done to get better value for money and, second, that permanent secretaries should be examined very searchingly on that report. That would, of course, be a departure for the PAC.
  He says that the Exchequer and Audit Department should, of course, continue to inquire into specific faults and that accounting officers should continue to be examined by the PAC on these matters, but he adds this point, which again would be a departure from present practice:
  "Specified officials would be designated as responsible for this purpose, just as, for some Votes now, the Accounting officer is a Second Permanent Secretary or Deputy Secretary".
  I believe that the intention of that recommendation is to put responsibility very clearly where it lies and to have the official responsible answer to the PAC.
  Of course, when permanent secretaries appear before the PAC, they are supported by other officials, but what Sir Richard appears to be suggesting is the designation of specified officials as being responsible.
  He then goes on to a point on which he has my full-hearted agreement and probably that of many hon. Members:
  "In my opinion, the Executive is too strong in relation to Parliament rather than too weak. But I do believe that changes, both for supply procedure and for audit, could be devised which would both strengthen the substance of Parliamentary control (while abandoning the shadow) and make a larger impact on the efficiency of the Department's administration."
  These are important suggestions. I raise these matters not because I wish at present to propose solutions; that would be far outside my remit today. But there is here a problem to which consideration needs to be given. I hope that the House and the Government will consider this.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I have been trying

  1699
  to follow closely the interesting trend of my right hon. Friend's remarks. Would he agree that what is necessary here is for the Expenditure Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to have before them, almost simultaneously, some idea of the public expenditure surveys of the Government?
  Mr. Dell: I speak without full briefing on this matter, but the position of the Public Accounts Committee is that, through the Comptroller and Auditor-General, it has, in principle at any rate, access to the documents of the Government except the documents of the Treasury. I may be wrong about that. I would have to inquire into it. But certainly it always assists the operation of Select Committees of the House if they have access to relevant documents, and the document to which my hon. Friend has referred would be a very relevant document. But I am being more modest at present.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me for interrupting him, but I did not hear the precise word mentioned by the hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas), who was within a few feet of the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to a particular document. Would the right hon. Gentleman perhaps mention it?
  Mr. Dell: Yes. My hon. Friend was suggesting that the Public Accounts Committee and the Expenditure Committee should have access to the Public Expenditure Survey.
  I noticed in The Times two days ago that the announcement was made about the appointment of the Expenditure Committee and of the hon. Member for Walsall, South as Chairman of that Committee. The Reporter writes as follows:
  "Sir Henry … knows that he has to give the committee the status of the Gladstonian Public Accounts Committee, which is more than 110 years old."
  I should like to say to the hon. Member for Walsall, South—in his absence—that if there is anything that the Public Accounts Committee can do to help the Expenditure Committee achieve a status comparable to our own, I hope that he will let us know. The status of the Public Accounts Committee comes not
  1700
  from its age but from its responsibilities and its direct relationship to accounting officers; age is not, however, always a disadvantage.
  I have indicated to the House what I believe to be certain areas of concern in the control which the House now exercises over a particular part of Government expenditure. I have concentrated particularly on Government investment in industry. I hope that there will be careful thought as to whether it might not be appropriate, perhaps, following something like the lines of what Sir Richard Clarke proposed in "New Trends in Government", for the PAC's methods of inquiry to be adapted and to be deployed over a wider field, and prospectively as well as retrospectively.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Public Accounts Committee, like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), but I hope that I am allowed to compliment its members and those who helped them on their First, Second and Third Reports.
  The points I shall make arise in particular from the Third Report. If one can single out any particular Votes, they are Votes 15 and 19. The theme I want to develop is to some extent the theme developed by the right hon. Gentleman—Government investment in industry. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman remarked, the report of the Public Accounts Committee is in a sense complementary to the excellent Sixth Report of the Public Expenditure Committee, published in July, which I regret we have not had an opportunity to debate in any depth.
  Vote 15 relates to the assistance given by the Department of Trade and Industry to the shipbuilding industry. We learn that about £40 million was committed under the Shipbuilding Industry Act 1967, through the SIB, and that is beyond or before any sums that have been or will be committed to Govan Shipbuilders to get that company under way.
  Vote 19 relates to the launching aid given from the Ministry of Aviation Supply, as it then was, to Rolls-Royce in connection with the RB 211 aero-engine, and that amounted to over £90 million. That is before any capital which the

  1701
  Government may have had to commit to get the new company off the ground. So we are talking about very sizeable sums of money. Both these examples—there are many other examples studded through the reports of the Public Accounts Committee—raise questions which I shall suggest to the House.
  Are Governments, of whatever complexion, committing public money to commercial or semi-commercial projects in the right way? To put the question more crudely, perhaps, does the taxpayer get an adequate return, in commercial, strategic or social terms, on his money?
  The problem is simple for both ends of the political spectrum. For those who believe in an unclouded, free market, there is no problem, as there should be no Government money committed. Equally, for those who believe in an entirely Marxist economy, there is no problem, for an entirely contrary reason. But for those of us—I suspect, with suitable diffidence, that we are to be found on both sides of the House—who have become reconciled to a mixed economy with varying degrees of emphasis, this is an acute problem and is likely to be a continuing problem.
  The first question I suggest should be asked, even if no very clear answer will be forthcoming tonight, is, should public money be committed by a Department of State, or should it be committed through some para-governmental agency or—if the House will forgive me for using an unattractive word—through some "para-statal" agency?
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hate to interrupt the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) but the fact is that at least one of us gave ample notice to the Department of Trade and Industry that we wished to raise the question of Rolls-Royce. The hon. and learned Member is asking some very important questions. Is it not strange that there is no DTI Minister on the Government Front Bench?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): That is not a point of order for the Chair.
  Mr. Rees: I am very happy to see on the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I
  1702
  have no doubt that he will convey our remarks to the Department of Trade and Industry. I am not optimistic that we shall reach any very profound conclusions tonight. But it is right that that question should be aired, because this is likely to be a continuing debate, not only in this Parliament but in many Parliaments thereafter.
  The problem was analysed with great lucidity and skill in the Sixth Report from the Expenditure Committee, to which I pay a further tribute. Perhaps not surprisingly, no very firm conclusion was reached, but it would be appropriate for me to quote the last paragraph:
  "We make a final comment. The post-war period, and particularly the last ten to fifteen years, has seen both a vastly increased commitment of public funds to private industry and a growth in the complexities and risks involved. It is not surprising that Government and industry have stumbled from time to time. The need is not to attribute blame and encourage recriminations but to draw lessons from which all will ultimately benefit. It is a matter for conjecture, and for debate elsewhere, how much money should make its way to the private sector in the years ahead. It is beyond doubt, however, that the complexities associated with such investment will multiply. We hope that others, in Parliament and outside, will carry the discussions forward."
  With suitable diffidence, I hope, I shall endeavour to carry the discussion a little further forward, beyond the point at which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead left it, although I do not say that I shall necessarily contribute anything more striking to the debate.
  The first question is, should we consider some kind of para-governmental agency, or should all public money be channelled through a Department of State, for whose activities a Minister is responsible in detail to us?
  It was noticeable in the evidence given to the Public Expenditure Committee that the weight of Civil Service evidence—this is not surprising, perhaps—was for the channelling of public funds through a Department of State. By contrast, the weight of outside evidence was that such money would be best channelled through a para-governmental agency. It is inevitable that prejudices will creep through, and I need not go into detail as to why civil servants should prefer to see this money handled through the organs of Government in preference to a governmental agency. My preference is for a

  1703
  para-governmental agency for the reasons which have been widely canvassed in the report.
  Mr. Dell: It is not for me to say how civil servants think on this issue but does the hon. and learned Member imagine that the replies of civil servants given to the Expenditure Committee are influenced by the decision, if any has been made, by the Government?
  Mr. Rees: Perhaps I speak with rather less experience than the right hon. Gentleman. I have not had the privilege of cross-examining civil servants in detail and I do not know whether they speak from a departmental brief or whether they draw on experience gained over the years. I am not in a position, therefore, to answer the question. I should prefer to leave it as a matter for speculation. My reasons for prefering a para-governmental agency are that I genuinely feel that Government and the Civil Service have already a wide enough field of activity to cover. I doubt whether they can take on added responsibilities in their present forms. Then again, I am not certain whether the training of our civil servants, admirable though it may be, necessarily equips them for a detailed appraisal of commercial and quasi-commercial projects, or for the supervision of those projects.
  So often when we come to consider in a moment of crisis whether Government money should be committed to such a project or not, there is a far-reaching debate and sensible conclusions may be reached. But one is left with the impression that after the money has been committed the pressure probably relaxes and the Minister concerned no longer has the time and the inclination to follow up what has happened to that money. The pressures perhaps build up in some other direction and he switches his attention elsewhere. We need therefore some kind of continuous supervision of what happens to the money. I do not say that we must continually breathe down the necks of the companies to which the money has been committed. That would be going too far. But a more sensitive form of supervision should be possible than perhaps can be exercised through a Government Department.
  1704
  It is not enough to summon a little outside assistance, perhaps a distinguished firm of accountants or a merchant bank, to make a quick appraisal which will then be the basis of a departmental decision which Parliament could adopt. If decisions are made in that way there will always be, I suspect, a tendency for the Minister concerned to say, "Let us for heaven's sake give them slighly more than they require so that we shall not have to go back to the House and justify a second request for funds." I do not consider that to be a very sensible way in which to commit public money. The problem must be kept under constant review committing as much money as it required from time to time, and I believe that this would be achieved more easily through some kind of autonomous agency, even though ultimately it would be responsible to a Minister.
  I wish to try to relate this debate to something we were discussing in the summer. I am a little gloomy about the experiment which has been foisted on us through the Industry Act. I do not believe that it is an adequate solution to give a Minister a sort of ad hoc advisory board in various parts of the country. We need a continuing body answerable to the Minister inevitably and ultimately, perhaps, because he will be appointing people to it, with access on a specified basis to public capital and able to act in a limited sphere on its own initiative and in a wider sphere on the initiative of the Minister. As for the precise financing of such an agency I doubt whether it is feasible to mix private and public capital in such a body. I suspect that any attempt to do so will lead to two sorts of capital being treated and accounted for on a different basis or both being subject to the standards of public accounting, which are perhaps not the most appropriate for a commercial or semi-commercial operation.
  Hon. Members opposite may suggest that my conclusions are leading irresistibly back to some form of IRC. It may be that, with the wisdom of hindsight, we were overquick to disband the IRC and that we could have drawn lessons from its operation. I believe that the IRC was wrongly conceived and, without introducing a partisan note, that it was set up in a period when we had a

  1705
  Minister who was restlessly tinkering with British industry. I must declare my political commitment. Although I advocate a para-governmental agency, I do not envisage it as a midwife attending at the birth of new companies and restlessly arranging matches between existing companies. That would take it beyond the kind of responsibilities that I envisage, because it would lead to big decisions which are perhaps more properly taken by the market.
  It is very difficult and improper for the Government and even for some kind of para-governmental agency to decide which two firms should link or to which kind of merger or reorganisation public money should be committed. That is a field of activity which is purely commercial and which should be left outside Government hands or control.
  I come, therefore, to the question of how and where money should be committed. Such agencies should have the power to make loans or to subscribe for preferred or even ordinary share capital or debenture stock. I have no emotional antagonism to the acquisition by such an agency of ordinary share capital provided it is not a covert form of backdoor nationalisation. In fairness, all of us would recognise that we have not evolved a proper systematic method of controlling nationalised industries and therefore I do not want to see that side of the nation's activities enlarged and I do not want to see such an agency used as a backdoor nationaliser. Beyond that I have no reservations about it committing money by means of acquisition of share capital where appropriate.
  The agency should have maximum commercial flexibility perhaps with the explicit reservation that it should be committed eventually to disposing of any shares it acquires in that way. I do not want to see it evolve as a sort of State-holding company, but beyond that it should have open to it all the methods available to a private merchant bank to finance industry. If such projects involve such an agency in putting members on the boards of private companies, so be it. That would be a perfectly logical step and must be one of the ways in which it could supervise investment in the private sector.
  Mr. Dalyell: On the question of how such an agency or, indeed, a Government Department operates in relation to people in companies which have this relationship with the Government, would the hon. and learned Member care to give any views on the way that the DTI, rightly or wrongly, has weighed in very heavily on the question of senior management of Rolls-Royce and has denied to Mr. Ian Morrow his choice of a managing director?
  Mr. Rees: I would not like to comment on the particular incident which the hon. Member raises, first, because I do not pretend to be in possession of all the facts and, secondly, because I do not know whether I see the Rolls-Royce situation necessarily developing by the means I am advocating at the moment. I do not mean that if there had been such a para-governmental agency we would have avoided the Rolls-Royce debâcle. The IRC was in existence, putting members on the board of Rolls-Royce during the critical period. But perhaps the question that the hon. Member is asking is going a little beyond my theme as to what rights of recourse members of individual boards should have. They have their rights of publicity and they have their contractual rights. I do not know whether beyond that that is a theme that I could legitimately develop in relation to the main theme I am trying to argue tonight. On another occasion I may be allowed to develop it with the hon. Member.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: This is a problem of limited Government interference once it occurs. Does the hon. and learned Member know of any instance of a firm which has had to seek Government financial assistance of this sort and has then succeeded in surviving? Do they not always become casualties?
  Mr. Rees: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member will regard this as a fair answer, but I should have thought that British Petroleum was a good case. It did not seek Government assistance and the Government bought their way in for strategic reasons. Originally there was a majority Government holding which now is a large minority holding. I would have thought it was unfair to describe BP as a casualty.

  1707
  It is one of our more successful oil companies. The hon. and learned Member may not regard that as a fair example.
  Mr. Paget: That was a case where we needed it, not one where it needed us.
  Mr. Rees: In self-defence I must say that that is the reply I was inclined to give. Possibly we shall see when the Industry Act has worked itself out. But if the hon. and learned Member looks through the IRC's accounts he will see that sums of money were committed—and they were committed in a variety of ways, by loans, debenture stock, and so on. It would be unfair to the memory of the IRC to say that all these companies had become casualties. We tend to get a slightly highly-charged view in this House because we debate only the failures and not the successes, but there are successes and it would he fair to state that the IRC, lamented or not lamented, had its successes as well as its failures.
  My final question concerns to what projects should money be committed. There are commercial projects for which the market is not adapted. Perhaps the scale is too big and the return likely to come over too long a period. That is the case where money could be committed, either on the initative of the agency or of the Minister, and the success or failure of that commitment could be judged by the harshest and most realistic of tests: has it worked out commercially? Even if we were not encouraged to debate in detail projects to which such an agency had committed funds, at least when the Public Accounts Committee came to review its activities we should have the simplest possible test by which to judge the success or failure of a purely commercial enterprise.
  We could have socially and environmentally desirable projects with what I would describe as a commercial substratum. This calls to mind projects needed in the regions where unemployment is acute. This should be entirely on the initiative of the Minister, who should commit such projects for the consideration of such an agency, and if he instructed it to go through with such a project it should be made clear that he had instructed it to do so for social,
  1708
  Environmental or whatever noncommercial reason.
  One of the great difficulties we always encounter is the blurring of the criteria when we come to consider such a project. Here, I do not wish to uncover old wounds, but I remain to be persuaded that Govan Shipbuilders should or would be justified by commercial criteria. There may be good social reasons why the company should be set up, but it has been justified by a rather specious commercial argument. I do not mean to criticise unduly the report of Hill Samuel, but it is possible for anyone to read between the lines. The report said that there was just a commercial case but that it was for the Government to justify their action on social and environmental grounds. If that is the case, I would much prefer the Government to say outright that this was a project which they commended on environmental or social grounds. Unless we know for sure what the project is designed to achieve, we cannot judge it in any meaningful sense. In those circumstances, we should be unable to arrive at any conclusions which would assist those involved or those who come after us.
  Mr. Dalyell: What does the hon. and learned Member consider to be the possible damage of candour to exports?
  Mr. Rees: That is a difficult question to answer. It may be that if Govan Shipbuilders produces the ships, they could be sold at a certain price, but that is not the point I am trying to make. The point is that we were supposed to have set up a viable commercial entity on the upper Clyde which could stand the test of real competition. I am trying to debate this subject in general terms without relating it too much to any particular project. The point of a debate like this is that we should clarify our minds as to how this kind of problem should be approached, not so much in relation to what happened in the past but for the future, so that we can lay down the kind of guidelines which enable us to have a meaningful debate and to reach meaningful conclusions, and enable the Public Accounts Committee to do its work more effectively.

  1709
  Where there are projects of this kind that can be justified on social or environmental grounds, although they have commercial substrata, the Government must come out and say so. There is a dilemma here because if the people on the upper Clyde are told that they are not really a commercial entity it could, in stark terms, he extremely demoralising. But it is equally demoralising to ask people to spend their working lives in a company which consistently shows a loss.
  There are also projects which will seem commercial in their nature but which are justified on strategic or defence grounds. This is the case, as I understood it, which was put forward for the resurrection of Rolls-Royce. Such cases must be judged by quite different criteria, and it is right for a Minister who commits such a project to a para-governmental agency to say that it is not primarily a commercial project but in the last analysis it must go through for strategic or defence reasons. It will then be possible to judge such a project by those criteria.
  I have been able to sketch out only in very general terms some ideas on this difficult and continuing subject, helped very much by the very able reports of the Public Accounts Committee. But the Committee can at best carry out a skilled and relentless post mortem on the corpse presented to it. What we need is some hard, consistent and forward thinking on how any Government should commit public money to industrial and commercial projects, on how such projects should be judged and on how the money committed should be controlled. Finally, we need to build up in the House some coherent experience in this difficult field to inform our future debates.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I join my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) in what he said about my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). We all greatly regret his absence and send him the very best of wishes for his early return. I probably speak for all of us on both sides if I say how stimulating it was to sit and watch the bubbling and amusing fertility of his mind. He made that Committee into something the meetings of which we looked forward to and we shall miss him tremendously while he is absent.
  1710
  As deputy chairman of the Committee, I should like to express my thanks for the various professional assistance which we received. A committee is useless without professional assistance. We must not minimise the professional assistance that a committee system requires. I am a profound believer in the committee system. The House is far better in committee than it is on the Floor of the House. It gets down to work; it forgets about being partisan and becomes interested in a subject. I wish that we had more Select Committees to initiate legislation and not merely to discuss existing legislation.
  We once had a Select Committe which was equipped with a professional parliamentary committee from the Service Departments and the Treasury which drafted and provided us with the Army Act. That Act was accepted without amendment either by the House or by the Government. Since the example of that remarkable success in complicated and long-overdue legislation, the procedure has never been repeated. I can never understand why.
  There is, for instance, a great call for legislation on aliens and nationality. A more ideal subject to hand over to a Select Committee to find an agreed solution and to put into shape I cannot imagine. I have pressed for years for this to happen. Perhaps the time will come when it will, but I am not sure that this is the right moment to call for it.
  Since I have been on the Committee I have been impressed by its effectiveness and the influence which by its existence it has on Parliament, not merely through the Government and through the House. The fact that the Committee is there and that people must sort out their ideas when they come before it is important, and it works.
  I intend to speak shortly on the report and to deal with the subject which has been raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees). There are three headings which broadly cover the intervention by Government in what is broadly described as sick industry, or industry that looks like getting sick. There is shipbuilding, which involved the payment of £l3 million to Harland and Wolff, the greater part of which went in paying off existing losses

  1711
  rather than providing for the re-equipment of the industry. There is the Rolls-Royce story. I feel a certain sympathy with Rolls-Royce. The engine which the company achieved and is achieving now is a notable one. I am thankful that we took it over. When one compares it as a useful contribution with Concorde, that "daddy" of disasters, it is hard to blame Rolls-Royce. The final, and perhaps most interesting project, which was wholly unsuccessful, was the Beagle.
  I will read out a passage from the Treasury Minute which shows such an astonishing somersault by the Government after what we heard at the election that I can receive it only with applause and appreciation. I thought that the Government were wrong then. They now think they were wrong, and they have reversed the decision. That is good; we must not grumble. On page 6 the Treasury Minute says:
  "The Treasury and the Department of Trade and Industry agree that further assistance from public funds should be used as effectively as possible for the development of a viable shipbuiding industry. But at the same time one of the purposes of Government assistance to industry is to support employment. As most shipbuilders are major employers in assisted areas where the level of unemployment is causing continuing concern, it may also be necessary to take wider regional and employment considerations into account when considering any further assistance to industry."
  Those are words which I applaud.
  It is important that we should realise that profitability is not the only criterion. Those who provide a service other than that of earning profits should not be spat upon because they are not earning profits. It is not disgraceful not to earn profits if it is made clear that that is not part of one's job.
  That applies to directly nationalised industries. For instance, when directly nationalised industries are told that they must not put up their prices as would a commercial concern, it should be made clear that that compliance with Government policy is a service to be charged to Government. The cost should be put in the accounts and debited to the Government. That is the only way in which it can be made clear.
  Equally, with partially assisted industries a major effort should be made to distinguish the expenses involved in com-
  1712
  plying with Government policy to provide employment in a particular area were it is not commercially feasible to do so, or to take on contracts at a price which is not commercially viable to provide employment in an area in which it is Government policy for employment to be provided. The cost of underestimating, or whatever it may be, should be charged to the Government. It should be made clear that the commercial price for the job is so much and if the Government introduce additional factors the Government should be charged with the difference between the commercial price and the actual price which is charged. I believe that it is important that this should be distinguished, and it is certainly important to the morale and feeling in industry that it should be.
  Similarly, I think that the other point which emerges from these experiences is the difficulty of limiting liability once the Government start to support an industry for Government purposes. One case is that of shipbuilding, with a limited support to improve the efficiency of the yards, and that capital support soon sunk by simple financial losses. In the Rolls-Royce case, we had what was termed a "launching liability" but it cannot apply to launching only. It goes on and we reach the position that we reached with Rolls-Royce. The Beagle experience is another example. The Government interest in that company was such that reasonable creditors could only regard Beagle as being the Government's and they let the Government take the decision. Law or no law, the Government had to pay Beagle's debts. That was the view taken. I think that the Government were right to take their decision in that case but they must recognise what flows from the line they take.
  On this aspect, paragraph 96 of the Third Report is of interest. It says:
  "The Treasury Minute records that the existence of a Government shareholding in a company registered with limited liability under the Companies Act does not of itself alter the legal rights and duties of shareholders, or of the Board, its officers and the company itself, or of third parties having dealings with the company;"
  It just is not true in practice. If one knows that the sole shareholders in a company are the Government and one does business with that company, one expects them to exclude their credit. The

  1713
  creditors thought so and any reasonable man would. Indeed, if the Government really tried to exclude their credit, they would find that the finance they were providing would become more expensive. That would not make sense.
  Therefore, I think that we should rather get away from the idea that in this sort of case one can really limit the liability once the Government have gone in. if the Government are going to accept liability, then I think that they must also accept the responsibility for managing, for which they are going to become liable. I think that probably the new Rolls-Royce type of structure may be the answer. Where the Government find a company in a position in which it can no longer carry on unless the Government provide the money, it is probably wise to say that the Government will also provide the directors. But at this point, if the Government want to put in their own directors, they need to have proper control, to know where they stand, and what they are going to do.
  I believe that more and more we shall find it very difficult to find a compromise between these two positions. I hope that we shall not be compromised on the issue by a partisan attitude either way towards nationalisation. "Nationalisation" has become an emotive word which really means nothing much else than an emotive word. I am not a nationaliser or an anti-nationaliser. I believe that nationalisation is one of the many instruments of economic organisation available, desirable in some cases and not in others, taking all kinds of different form. Sometimes it is the right solution and sometimes the wrong one. There are different forms of control, depending on circumstances. I hope that we shall be able to judge things on their merits and realise that limited involvement at the point where Government support becomes necessary is not in practice a viable proceeding.
  These are the only short points I want to make. In the next Session, the new Committee will be heavily involved in what is perhaps the most important issue which the Public Accounts Committee has ever had to look into—the management of North Sea gas and oil. I think that it will be a very interesting session for the Committee.
  Mr. Peter Rees: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman extend his proposition to all forms of Government commitment, whether it be by minority shareholding, debenture stock or loan? Surely he would not want to extend it to any situation where there is Government money in a company?
  Mr. Paget: I am not saying that it should always be done but we have to realise that very often a limited commitment is simply not available to the Government, that once they have taken the decision it has to be maintained for public reasons. In those circumstances, the Government find it more and more difficult to limit the extent to which that maintenance has to be held. That, I think, is the difficulty.
  5.26 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, and I am sorry that I missed the speech of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). I echo what has been said about the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). I joined the Public Accounts Committee late in the last Session. I found the meetings not only useful and interesting but also agreeable, and that is a very happy position for an hon. Member to be in.
  I think that the most important thing which the committee discussed in the last Session was the very point we have been concentrating our attention on today. It is a most difficult point. We see in our report questions about Section 332 of the Companies Act and the responsibilities of directors not to be engaged in fraudulent trading; and the linking of that aspect, if there are Government directors, with information which the Government might have. It might seem that all this was extremely technical. It was extremely fundamental—rather like the filioque clause in the Creed. In the end, that one word split Christendom and the result 1,500 years later is still with us. In this technical matter of the responsibility of directors appointed by the Government when the Government are providing money, and of the view which creditors take of the company, we see the dilemma which faces the whole of the community in the question not only of a mixed economy but of mixed companies.

  1715
  I have some sympathy with the view just propounded that if one is in for a penny one is in for a £ and there may be no half-way house. That does not mean to say that every time the Government decide to take an interest in something it has to be nationalised in the old, steam style like the railways or the coal industry. If an equity base can be maintained, with the Government owning the whole—we have the Rolls-Royce case in this respect—that is a much more flexible means, it seems to me, for the capital structure of a company.
  In paragraph 97 of the Third Report the Committee noted that the Department of Trade and Industry attached great importance to making clear when the Government took an interest the extent of their involvement. I think that what has just been said focuses upon the question whether in practical terms that is a possibility. I do not want to say that it is not. We are in a position in which any hon. Member would be very bold to be too dogmatic about anything in this sector. We have to study, to learn and to experiment. But I would not like to see a position, although I recognise all the difficulties, in which the Government could not give some help to a firm because they feared that if they once gave a penny there would be no stop to the number of £s.
  If one regards the Government as a kind of merchant bank, they can go in for a certain amount and after that they can stop. But if they do that—and this is one of the lessons of Beagle—they must make clear from the start what they are doing, so that creditors and others concerned know what the Government are doing and if they misread the signs that is their look-out. There has been a lack of clearness in the past and assumptions have been made—again, Beagle is a good example. Assumptions were made in that case which, although in the letter of the law were not right, were nevertheless right in general practice. The last Government acknowledged the position and I am glad they did. So here we have an example where the conflict between Government capital being involved and a limited liability is clear. The conflict must be resolved by better definition of the Government's involvement if there is to be
  1716
  a limited Government commitment in a limited liability company.
  But there is the other point to which the Committee refers in paragraph 100—the position of Government directors on the question of reckless trading and their consenting to reckless trading. A director must not only consent to it to be in breach of the Act—I have had various lessons read to me by colleagues on this, and I think that I now understand the position; he has not only to be involved in reckless trading to be in breach of Section 332 of the Companies Act, but he must do so knowingly. The Government, of course, perhaps the major provider of funds in a company, must keep on informing themselves, and can do so much more readily than an ordinary shareholder perhaps with a minority interest would ever dream of doing or be able to do.
  Mr. Paget: But the Government very often provide the finance precisely because they know the company is insolvent.
  Mr. Maddan: That puts in a nutshell the whole dilemma, which leads me to my second point—that if the Government are doing this because they know that in an ordinary commercial sense to go on trading is not a sound commercial proposition, they may, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) said, in some sense have to say so, because if they do not say so the position of the company and of the creditors becomes ambiguous and liable to many difficulties.
  Mr. Paget: So does the Government's position.
  Mr. Maddan: We must find a formula. It could be found through the Public Accounts Committee, but perhaps that Committee has had its innings on the matter. It could be through further examination by the Government or by examination by a special Select Committee. The subject of Government involvement in industry is not of minor importance. I hope that we shall find a formula that is spared the overtones of party politics. It will have to be one that makes clear to all concerned, if the Government are taking an interest in a limited liability company, what the limit of their interest will be. I hope

  1717
  that the Government will then have the principle to stick to that and not throw good money after bad, if they have gone into the company on a commercial basis—and they may sometimes have to do this because they may sometimes be the only banker a company can have.
  But if the Government have gone into a company on a non-commercial basis because of trouble of a different sort, a different situation arises, and the position of Government directors is extremely difficult unless the Government have made it clear that in those cases they are in up to their necks and without limit.
  Therefore, there are two distinct cases. One, is where there is a commercial reason and the Government are acting as a banker because for some reason other sources of finance will not fulfil that rôle. It is then a matter of making clear the limit of the Government's commitment. The other type of case is where the Government are really in for a virtually unlimited liability. There the whole relationship of the Government to the company and its management must undergo a radical change.
  I do not believe that any of us has the whole matter straight. I do not believe that we shall get it right in one go, or for every circumstance for all time. An immense amount of thought, discussion and debate must take place on the subject, if there is to be confidence in the trading community and in those working in companies receiving Government assistance, and if the taxpayer, whose money is being used, is to be confident that it is being used in a sensible way in the circumstances of the case. Therefore, I found it very instructive to be able to take part in the end of the proceedings of the Committee. I felt that we were at the beginning of a very important argument rather than at the end. Although the Public Accounts Committee has in a sense now laid down that topic I hope very much that it will be taken up elsewhere.
  5.39 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) will forgive me if I do not deal with his theology or his formulae, or indeed the rest of his interesting speech, the more interesting because it was mostly impromptu.
  1718
  I join in the general good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I served under three chairmen of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), then my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and subsequently the former right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, now Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and I know how a chairman of the Committee can impose his own personality for good or bad on the Committee and the amount of productive work that it gets through. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, who has gone home now, will soon return to us, and I send him good wishes.
  Precisely because I am not a member of the Committee now and some of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members present are, I should like to say something else. The House often seriously underrates the amount of work a small number of our colleagues do in the committees, and they do not receive the public credit that they should. If the work is done properly, it is a hard slog. There is a great deal to read. Therefore, I find it a little strange that no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry has been present so far.
  I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Agriculture, Scottish Office, for coming. As the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I have spent a considerable part of the past nine months, both upstairs in committee and on the Floor of the House, listening to each other on the Finance Bill, he knows that I have a high personal regard for him, and do not complain that he is the Minister who is to answer the debate. But that is not the argument. The argument is that it was obvious from the report that major matters concerning the Department of Trade and Industry were involved. It is not as though there were not quite a number of Ministers in the Department. There is a whole Roman cohort of them. Moreover, I, and I suspect others, warned the private office of the new Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that we should raise certain specific matters.

  1719
  It may be that the Under-Secretary of State for Aerospace and Shipping is at Cape Kennedy and that the Minister for Aerospace is in California, but there are others. I intervened in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees). If I were he, I should be complaining at my party meeting—or is it the 1922 Committee?—that there were not Ministers on the Front Bench to hear my valuable speech. All of us are a little embarrassed at having to take the attitude, "Why wasn't the Minister here to hear me?", so perhaps I can say it more easily than the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  When hon. Members have taken a great deal of trouble, as do the Comptroller and Auditor-General and those who work for them, there is a substantial case for saying that at least the Departments most involved should be represented on the Front Bench for what is a comparatively short time. I shall leave that subject simply with the reflection that I wonder what better things the rest of the Department's Ministers have to do. I should like to be told precisely what engagements for each of those Ministers is more important, granted that two of them are abroad, doubtless for good reasons. What more important have they do do than to attend for five hours to hear hon. Members who have done a great deal of work? I can say that more easily because I am not a member of the Committee.
  I have given notice that I should like to raise three separate issues. The first concerns Rolls-Royce. I have two questions here, the first concerning paragraph 22 of the report, which says:
  "The real trouble was not so much the escalation of development costs as the rise in production costs, due to the need to incorporate modifications, and the liability for penalties for late deliveries, which meant that the company was going to make a loss on every production engine. Until a fairly late stage in the project the Ministry had restricted their technical monitoring to the development programme to which launching aid specifically related, and the possible repercussions on production of delays in development were not being examined."
  I do not want to reminisce, but on the PAC I went through the whole Bloodhound saga. One of the things that came quite clearly out of that was that it is all very well to talk about technical monitoring provided we have the technical cost
  1720
  officers. But it should be understood that the cost of having technical cost officers monitoring what is done by a major firm, such as Ferranti, Bristol, Rolls-Royce, is in itself considerable.
  Do the Government think that it is fair of the Committee to say—and it seems to be accepted in the Government report—that there should be more monitoring? If so, what are the consequences for the technical service at the Government's disposal? In particular, is it now a fact that the shortage of technical cost officers, which was very serious two years ago, has somehow been made up? If we want monitoring, we must have the means to do it. I question whether Government Departments have the means to do it on the scale suggested.
  Mr. Dell: It is not for me to say what individual members of the Committee might have thought to be appropriate in this case, but my hon. Friend will have observed that its conclusion, at paragraph 26, is rather different and in a way more modest, being that as far as possible the Department of Trade and Industry should establish that the company will be capable of carrying out the project and taking its own part of the risk, and that the company's general management organisation is sound and good. It stresses the importance of trying to establish the potential cost which might fall on the company. In other words, although reporting what had been said to it in evidence, the Committee came to a perhaps more modest conclusion about what the actual possibilities in such a case were.
  Mr. Dalyell: I take the point. I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that one of the things about the Committee, something that perhaps gives it authority, is that its conclusions are always stated extremely modestly. I have thought that perhaps it was the modest language that rather clouded the Committee's will in the matter. But I take my right hon. Friend's point, and I am glad to hear it.
  I turn to paragraph 26 for my second point. If we are to do as recommended in the paragraph, we must be concerned about the relationship between Government and senior personnel in a company. Therefore, I refer to HANSARD of 4th December, beginning with Question No.

  1721
  19 asked by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost), who has had a continuous interest in Rolls-Royce. He asked:
  "Is my hon. Friend aware that even the auditors of the accounts admitted that they were unrealistic as the payments for the assets acquired nearly two years ago have still not been made, that a suspense account exists on the accounts for £77 million towards such payment? Why was the hearing of the independent assessor again deferred?"
  After his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had replied, I asked:
  "Why was not confidence shown in the independent assessor?"
  I received a somewhat tart reply from the Under-Secretary:
  "I do not know what on earth the hon. Gentleman is talking about."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1972; Vol. 847, c. 896–7.]
  Having regard to all the water that has gone under the bridges, he must have had a clear idea of precisely what I was talking about. Therefore, I ask whether the Government have had any more thoughts on the question of the independent assessor.
  I turn to Questions Nos. 37 and 44 asked on the same day. In Written Question No. 44, I asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry:
  "for what reasons he resisted the request of Mr. Ian Morrow in September and October, 1972, that Mr. Ronald G. Hooker should be given a senior position in the changed management structure of Rolls-Royce; and on what criteria his Department intervenes in the choice of people for positions in Rolls-Royce 1971 Ltd."
  The reply by the Under-Secretary was:
  "I do not think it would be right for me to answer any question asking why any particular person has not been appointed to any post, or to comment on allegations about such matters."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1972; Vol. 847, c. 288–9.]
  I do not wish to cause trouble over this matter. I do not wish to be personally malicious to any individual. There is a public issue involved concerning precisely to what extent the Department and the Civil Service interfere with the choice of people for a company which has the relationship that Rolls-Royce now has with the Government. I would have thought the time had come to ask this question, and to get a serious reply, as to the basis on which civil servants advise
  1722
  Ministers and on what basis Ministers, on Civil Service advice, choose people who are to hold supremo posts.
  For a Government to say to a chairman "You will not have X, Y or Z as a managing director" involves an interference by the State such as we have not had in this field before. It may be justified. At least Parliament should be told of the basis on which the Government are thinking.
  The second issue of which I gave notice concerns the Under-Secretary of State. I would ask for any information on the latest developments concerning what one might call the saga of the Nine Wells Hospital, Dundee. I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is present because he knows a great deal about the Nine Wells Hospital. What is the latest information that can be given on the rising costs of Nine Wells? I ask that question for a particular reason. Perhaps the next major general hospital in Scotland is to be built at the new town of Livingston in my constituency.
  I should like it to be known clearly that out of the Nine Wells situation some lessons have been learnt. I ask this question not to cause trouble. It is simply that it would be intolerable after all that the Public Accounts Committee has said about the management of hospitals in Scotland, not only this year but on previous occasions, if some lessons for the good of the public were not learnt. For example, has anything been learnt about standardisation? What has been learnt about cost control?
  The Government reply is:
  "In Scotland, the Scottish Home and Health Department consider that the maintenance of sound financial control standards will be assisted by the new single-tier board structure, enacted in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972 which should facilitate the development of an improved finance staffing structure headed by the designated treasurer of each board.
  Pending the reorganisation of the National Health Service the departments will not relax their efforts to see that the present hospital authorities obtain value for the money they spend."
  In its modest way the Public Accounts Committee was critical. That seemed to me to be a somewhat watery reply which the Government gave to the strictures of

  1723
  the PAC. The PAC said at paragraph 32:
  "In reply to a parallel inquiry by the Comptroller and Auditor General, following visits by his officers to ten hospitals in Scotland, during the two years ended June 1971, the Scottish Home and Health Department admitted that at six of the ten Boards of Management he overall standard of financial control had been for some time less than satisfactory, largely on account of staffing problems."
  Have those staffing problems been put right? Since the PAC says this with regard to six out of 10 cases the Treasury, to put it mildly, must have some thoughts on it.
  Whereas many of us have been sympathetic to the very real problems of hospital building, the Nine Wells situation seems to many of us to have got absolutely out of hand. It is all very well crying over spilt milk. My concern is that this shall not happen again. Therefore I hope that the Treasury has some kind of brief from the Scottish Office to see how future general hospitals, and in particular the general hospital at Livingston, will avoid some of the mistakes that happened at Nine Wells.
  My last point concerns the PACs statement on nuclear energy and particularly what was said about the fast reactor. Paragraph 49 says:
  "The remaining system under development by the Authority is the Fast Reactor system."
  It then sets out the history and it goes on to say:
  "Assessments have been made from time to time of the economic benefits to be expected from the Fast Reactor System, but these have produced widely differing results. As an example Your Committee noted that whereas the Authority had estimated the economic benefit expected from the Fast Reactor at between £1,300 million and £1,500 million, a subsequent study by a Joint Study Steering Group, on which the generating boards and the design and construction companies were represented, had estimated the benefit at only £220 million. The Authority attributed the differences in analyses of economic benefit mainly to the difficulty of making reliable forecasts of the costs of alternative fuels in 15 or 20 years' time and of the size of the nuclear programme likely to be installed over the next 15 years. They explained that the earlier assessments would in any case be superseded by the results of a comprehensive review of Fast Reactor developments being undertaken by the Department of Trade and Industry in parallel with the review previously mentioned."
  It would be a fair conclusion that this is a somewhat optimistic report compared to
  1724
  that which appeared on 25th November on the front page of the Scotsman signed by Maurice Baggott. I wonder how that report ever was highlighted. I have told the Department that I think this report, from all that has been said by Sir John Hill and others, has very little foundation. I said that to the Department because mud, once thrown, tends to stick. There should be some kind of a proper denial or comment on Maurice Baggott's report because if this is allowed to go uncontradicted, as has happened so far as many people are concerned, it is extremely damaging to what many of us, who have visited Dounreay three times, would think is a very worthwhile experiment. Therefore, I gave notice to the Department. That is one of the reasons why I am sad there is no Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry present.
  I should like to comment on four of Mr. Baggott's statements. His first comment was that a sodium-cooled reactor was not possible within present engineering know-how.
  Mr. Higgins: I am not entirely clear as to the relationship of this report to the PAC report.
  Mr. Dalyell: In the PAC report there was a full discussion of the fast breeder system at paragraphs 49, 50 and 51. One of the difficulties about this report is that evidence was taken and, similar to last year's Bradshaw, a good deal may be out of date. On this matter I am trying to be as helpful to the AEA as possible, because this report did appear; it was quoted in the foreign Press. The PAC report gives the Government an opportunity to state what their view is of a system that is of vital importance to Scotland. Therefore, I relate it to paragraphs 49, 50 and 51.
  The second point on which I would wish to comment is the following:
  "The decision to close Dounreay will have to come from the Government; but it is almost inevitable now that the engineers attached to the Government have given it the thumbs-down."
  I do not believe that for a moment but I should like a clear statement that there is no chance of that happening. The article continues:
  "However, nuclear scientists now believe that should the core be increased to commercial size there would be virtually no way of controlling reaction."

  1725
  This is the fourth point:
  "The 250-megawatt prototype, costing £25 million, was expected to be generating power for the grid on a fully operational basis by the end of this year."
  These statements appeared on the front page of a reputable newspaper. Presumably there was some discussion in the newspaper office before what was, frankly, a damaging article to Scottish industry ever got on to the front page, and therefore it is right—and today's debate gives us the opportunity—to have a full denial of the report that was put out.
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gorden Campbell): As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have only just come into the Chamber, but another Scottish Minister was present. I think that the hon Gentleman has been talking about the fast-breeder reactor at Dounreay—
  Mr. Dalyell: Yes.
  Mr. Campbell: —and the Press report which appeared somewhat dramatically about three weeks ago. Perhaps I may tell the hon. Gentleman that the Atomic Energy Authority denied this very soon afterwards.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am aware of that but, whether we like it or not, the original report, not least in the foreign Press, received a great deal more publicity—as often happens—than the denial. I therefore thought it right, having given notice to the Department of Trade and Industry, that specific points should be denied by the Government Front Bench tonight. As will be borne out in the notice that I gave to the office of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, I do not believe the report which appeared in the Press, but what I am saying is that because of the widespread publicity which the report has received it seems worth the time of the House of Commons denying it, and denying it in some detail; and that is why I gave notice.
  I hope that the fast-breeder reactor system will be seen as long term and viable, even in a country that may be surrounded by North Sea oil and gas. These resources are finite. We went over all this in the Scottish Committee. My hope is that in the light of what the PAC said, and in the light of its report, the Government will take the opportunity to-
  1726
  night to express confidence in the fast-breeder reactor system.
  6.2 p.m.
  Mr. Stephen Hastings: I rise to make a comparatively narrow point and therefore I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) will forgive me if I do not follow him far into a speech which I found interesting but on much of which I am not sufficiently informed to make any reliable comment. There was, however, one thing that he said at the beginning with which I wholly agree.
  The hon. Gentleman drew the attention of the House to the great amount of work that is done by the PAC and other Select Committees which is not generally appreciated, perhaps even in this place, and certainly not outside. I know the hon. Gentleman from the past as a diligent committee man. I served with him for some time on the Select Committee on Science and Technology and can bear witness to that. I am sure he is right, and I hope that these debates will do something to emphasise the great volume of useful work that is done in this way. It is a part of government without which we would be vastly poorer.
  I have to declare a clear interest since I intend to allude briefly to those paragraphs in the report which bear on the Sugar Board, 52 to 59, and to paragraphs in the Treasury Minute which refer to them. I am retained as a consultant to Tate and Lyle, not on matters dealt with in this report but simply on European affairs. Nevertheless, my interest is an obvious one and I should declare it at the outset.
  The point that I have to make is brief, and I hope that the House will agree that it is fair. Any independent witness reading these paragraphs would, I am sure, agree that they imply a quite serious criticism of the present method of refining sugar in this country. That criticism centres on the private side of the industry, and particularly on Tate and Lyle as the biggest unit in the sector.
  I should like to point out to the PAC, to the House and to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that although I agree that if I had been a member of the PAC presented simply with the evidence as it appears in the report, I might well have agreed with the conclusion that is drawn,

  1727
  nevertheless I do not regard that evidence as presenting anything like a full picture. The reason is that the private companies were never summoned and that what emerged was to some extent one-sided.
  The criticism turns on the supposed extra cost of tranporting raw beet sugar to cane refineries where it is refined by Tate and Lyle, rather than its being refined by the British Sugar Corporation in what is known in the business as "white ends" to its existing plants—and that means extra investment not mentioned in the report—nearer to the beet areas.
  I contend that the costing of the Comptroller and Auditor-General would be challenged by Tate and Lyle, and I should like to make three brief points in that connection. It is significantly cheaper to truck raw sugar, to transport it in bulk in open lorries from the main beet-growing areas, which are predominantly in East Anglia, to areas of main population densities, such as Liverpool, Glasgow and London where the main refineries exist and to distribute refined packets of sugar from there than it is to distribute refined packets from the beet areas. I do not think that that was taken into consideration.
  Secondly, London and Liverpool are respectively the largest and third largest refineries in the world. They enjoy considerable economies of scale and as a result of good labour practices they are enabled to maintain continuous working. No responsible body has ever questioned their efficiency before, and a deep knowledge of what goes on there is necessary before criticism of the kind implied here could be justified.
  Thirdly, it is obvious that the cane refineries already exist and that to abandon them would be to waste important national resources. As I have already said, the PAC's cost comparison makes no mention of the cost of fresh investment in different parts of the country, in the beet-growing areas for instance, which would be necessary if such a transfer of refining capacity were to take place. Nor does it make any reference to the cost in human terms of the redundancies which would result in acute unemployment areas such as Merseyside and Clydeside, which could scarcely be balanced by an improvement in job
  1728
  opportunities in an area such as East Anglia where comparatively full employment already exists.
  Those three points seem to me to be deeply relevant to the evidence and to the conclusion reached by the Committee. They were not brought out, and they are typical examples of the sort of argument that can emerge only if all sides of the industry are enabled to put their point of view.
  There is a good deal more that could be said but, as my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary knows—and the PAC evidence refers to it—there is an inquiry in process on the future shape of the sugar refining industry—the so-called Cyriax inquiry—commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture and the various refining companies, and I dare say that when he replies my hon. Friend may feel that he is restricted in his comments on this passage of the report because of this inquiry. But I must draw attention to a passage in the Treasury Minute which was also referred to by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell). It reads as follows:
  "The production of raw sugar from beet by the British Sugar Corporation is one of the issues under consideration and full account will be taken of the Committee's view that there is a clear need to ensure that sugar is puroduced by the most efficient methods."
  The right hon. Member for Birkenhead asked: What does that mean? I ask the same. It seems to me that the inference from that passage in the Treasury Minute could well be that in some sense the Government agree with the criticism in the Public Accounts Committee's Report. I ask my hon. Friend to beware of any such thing, since it is based upon evidence predominantly from only one side of the industry.
  My hope is that when the Cyriax inquiry is complete and, happily, agreement is reached among the various sectors of the industry on how to proceed, the Public Accounts Committee will return to the subject of sugar and the refining industry, but that, when it does so—this is my earnest request—it will take into account not simply the Department's view but that of the very large responsible and efficient private sector as well.
  I see no objection to that whatever. Indeed, only when that is done, it seems to me, will it be possible to reach a balanced conclusion. It is my contention

  1729
  now that that is not the case from the evidence as produced in this report, nor in the conclusion which flows from it.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I join all those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides who have expressed deep regret at the absence today of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever). I too, though a comparatively new member of the Committee, have benefited by watching him in action as Chairman. I very much hope, as the whole House does, that he will speedily return to health and to his activities in this place.
  I shall direct attention to those parts of the Committee's Report which deal with the shipbuilding industry, with particular reference to the working of the Shipbuilding Industry Act. I shall refer to the subvention—I use the word loosely—given to the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde, and on the Upper Clyde in particular. It is worth emphasising that there are many shipbuilding yards on the Clyde, and in the main the ones which have been in difficulty have been associated with the consortium called Upper Clyde Shipbuilders.
  There is a sharp distinction between the activities prevailing there and those prevailing in Scott Lithgow on the Lower Clyde and, happily now, those prevailing at Yarrow Shipbuilders. For the benefit of the House and the benefit of the industry, that distinction ought to be made clear. I have had a long association with Mr. Archie Gilchrist and, naturally, I wish him and the others well in Govan Shipbuilders, but it was an unhappy prospect—this point is made in the Committee's Report and in the Treasury Minute—to see that, after 20 years, very little change had occurred. In other words, millions of pounds of public money have been poured into this concern but with little capital development resulting.
  As the minute indicates, there are other reasons for the subvention to the shipbuilding industry, for instance unemployment reasons, but if we are to build a viable shipbuilding industry, massive capital development is necessary. I contrast my experience at Govan Shipbuilders with my experience at Harland & Wolff at
  1730
  Belfast. Mr. Hoppe has had many difficulties to overcome, not the least of them being the present unhappy situation in Northern Ireland, but when one visits that yard one can see real prospects of its being capable, in terms of capital development and prospective capital development of matching the best shipbuilding yards in Europe, if not in the world.
  In paragraph 12 of our Third Report, we make the point that the Department had learned that
  "it was important to pay attention to management and manpower as well as money."
  If the Government will pay attention to management and manpower as well as money, the attitude of the Department of Trade and Industry is of considerable importance. I am not at this point complaining about the absence of a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry, although my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was right to do so since he had a matter of concern to the Department to raise. I am concerned about the attitude of the civil servants and of Ministers towards this industry, which is of supreme importance.
  I was therefore disturbed to read what one of the civil servants was reported to have said on his return from a visit to Japan. I quote here from Lloyd's List of 27th November, which reports this gentleman as having said that Japan could build only simple ships. The article goes on to say:
  "At present, he added, Japan did not compete at all in world markets with smaller, more specialised, ships"
  and he indicated, as I say, that Japan was at present capable of building only simple ships.
  Admittedly, there is an indication in the report that Japan might move to more complex vessels in the future, but that is not an expression of attitude which I want to see coming from a civil servant who is responsible, under the Minister, for the well-being of our industry. It is a most important industry. It is not—if I may put it in this way—an industry engaged in the "sexy" forms of technology like the Concorde. Perhaps I may point out in passing that we are spending hundreds of millions of pounds on an aeroplane for which we are not at all sure that we shall have any firm

  1731
  orders. There well may be good technological and employment reasons for doing it, but I contrast that with the position of shipbuilding and the constant strictures we hear about subsidising it.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Peter Rees) said, in effect, that the Government should back winners and be sure of a commercial return. We know that there is now being developed and built a sophisticated type of ship called the liquefied natural gas carrier, for which there is a growing world market. Other countries are subsidising that kind of ship.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood my theme somewhat. I did not say that the Government should only back winners. Most winners, or a great number of them, will be spotted by the market and be backed by the market. All I am saying is that, if the Government wish to back something which cannot be justified in purely commercial terms, they should say so and make their reasons clear.
  Mr. Douglas: I am grateful for that intervention because it serves to make my point. If the market is making a judgment on the industry and on the future demand prospects for certain vessels, it is reasonable to point out that there are winners there, provided that other countries do not unduly subsidise competitive products. This is what we have to keep in mind—not so much what is being done by the Government in the United Kingdom but what other Governments are doing to protect their industry or to protect their strategic position.
  I am reliably informed that the market at the upper level for this class of ship will be 170 vessels by the late 1980s. We are not building one in the United Kingdom and there is no prospect that we shall build any in the foreseeable future. But what is happening in the United States? I have figures to show that the United States Government, being concerned about the building of liquefied natural gas carriers for their own strategic purposes, are willing to subsidise these ships to the tune of 25 per cent. That may not sound much of a figure when one says it, but it is in fact 25 per cent. on ships costing in excess of £40 million each. It is £10 million a ship. That is what it is worth to them.
  1732
  Therefore, if we are concerned about employment prospects, if we are concerned about a viable industry, the Treasury, in consultation with the DTI, ought to be saying to our shipbuilding industry that this is the form of support it will be given, that it will certainly be given facilities to embark on design studies and that this is the form of subsidy it can expect for this type of ship or for other types of ship. It is a matter of regret that we have removed investment grants from ship owners. The Government have yet to state their policy in this respect. In terms of a declining and difficult market, they have yet to state their policy after their survey of the industry and what they will do to replace investment grants for ship owners or what form of assistance will be forthcoming under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act to support the shipbuilding industry.
  That is an important industry. It is not a declining industry in world market terms. It is an industry which is in difficulty because it is being starved of capital development and because it has had numerous attacks made on it. That had led to difficulties in terms of manpower and management. At the risk of embarrassing my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), I would say that the most imaginative management I have seen in United Kingdom shipbuilding for a long time is that now in the charge of Cammell Laird shipbuilders. I am quite sure that the assistance the Government are giving to that industry in Cammell Laird will be money well spent. I take a large chance on my interpretation of the abilities of that yard with that management.
  I turn briefly to the closing item in the Public Accounts Committee's Report where we say that we will investigate the question of North Sea oil and the way in which licences are given. It would be wrong of me to go into too much detail on that but I recognise that this is perhaps the most important event to have happened in terms of the United Kingdom economy. It is therefore important for this House that we make a searching inquiry as to the background and make an assessment of how the United Kingdom industry can benefit fully from the potential available.

  1733
  I conclude on a note of criticism of the DTI in relation to what is happening in this industry at the present time. The DTI has set up a Ship and Manufacturing Technology Requirements Board to facilitate the customer/contractor relationship. The members of the board are distinguished gentlemen, but there is not a Scot among them. It is a criticism of Scottish industry that we cannot get a man of suitable calibre to be a member of the board. We might look at the implications of that criticism. The Government have set up this body with extensive terms of reference. The board's field of interest includes shipbuilding, shipping, hovercraft, marine technology including navigation, safety under water and operational studies. At least a large part of that is related to what is happening in the North Sea. On the Heriot-Watt campus we shall have a Department of Offshire Technology which is being built up by private funds. There are no public funds available at the present time. I consider that appalling. I want to know what public funds we shall have. Certainly in relation to this important board I would expect there to be some Scottish representation. I welcome, if possible, some indication from the Treasury Minister when he replies tonight of how he will approach his colleague on the DTI on this matter.
  Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend rather sadly remarked that there was still no DTI Minister on the Front Bench. A number of us gave notice this morning to the DTI that we hoped to raise subjects specific to that Department. There is a whole Roman legion of DTI Ministers. Would it not be possible for one of them to be present at this debate on the Public Accounts Committee's Report?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Barnes: I should like to associate myself with what has been said about the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. It is sad that he cannot be with us today, but it is good news that he is now out of hospital. I begin by paying a tribute to his chairmanship. His style is in marked contrast to the rather daunting magisterial style of his predecessor, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. His mas-
  1734
  tery of the subject and the touch of irony which he often brings to our proceedings—which often go unnoticed by some of the witnesses appearing before us—make him a very effective chairman indeed.
  Although the Public Accounts Committee may have been fortunate in its chairman in recent years, I should like to start by making one or two observations on the difficulties that its members sometimes face in discharging their duties on the Committee. I have been a member of the Committee for the longest continuous period of any of the members at present on it, since 1967, and my main feeling about the Committee is that we have much more difficulty in getting on equal terms with the witnesses appearing before us than is often apparent from our reports. There have been one or two improvements in this respect in recent years, two of which stemmed from suggestions made by myself.
  When I first came on to the Committee I found it extraordinarily difficult sometimes to get at the true significance of some of the Comptroller and Auditor-General's reports, so neutral is the prose—and this applies to all Comptrollers and Auditors-General—employed traditionally in his reports. With some temerity I raised this matter in the Committee a few years ago. The Committee agreed to ask the Comptroller and Auditor-General to improve the method of briefing Members in order to point our noses more in the right direction. This is now done, and it has been a great help.
  A second difficulty I find on the Committee is the bewildering speed at which we switch from examining civil servants on aircraft contracts on, say, a Monday to the Forestry Commission on a Wednesday, and then the following Monday we may be looking into accountability for naval stores.
  It seemed important to me that we should not spend all our time on the Committee in cross-examination but that we should occasionally—certainly when we are faced with a difficult inquiry—spend a little bit of time discussing among ourselves on the Committee exactly how a cross-examination and the inquiry should be carried out. This we do, and it has been a considerable improvement. However, much of our cross-examination is still imperfect. We have

  1735
  too much difficulty in getting on equal terms with the people appearing before us.
  The accounting officers whom we examine are the permanent secretaries of Government Departments. They are men of high calibre. Men like Sir Michael Cary or Sir Basil Engholm have to be batting on a very bad wicket indeed before they have difficulty in getting on top of anything we are able to bowl at them. It is a fact about the British political system that we have a first-class Civil Service, composed of high-calibre people, who are on the whole cleverer and more able than Ministers and Members of Parliament. Ministers and Members of Parliament have different talents. We are supposed to be better at making decisions; we are supposed to be better at spotting bad decisions. My hon. Friends will probably not agree with me but it is my feeling that the intellectual armoury which we in this House are able to bring to bear, man for man, is somewhat inferior to that of our opposite numbers in Whitehall. If the object of the Public Accounts Committee is to protect the interests of the taxpayer and to uncover abuses in the way public money is spent, we need to have the dice loaded more in our favour than is the case at present.
  What I should really like to see is the PAC put out of business by a series of Select Committees for each Government Department. Such committees could scrutinise and investigate the entire working of a Government Department on a continuing basis. The members of such committees would build up a great deal of expertise over a long period. When it came to inquiring into accountability, they would be able to do a much better job than the PAC is now able to do.
  There are two examples in the Third Report of our proceedings in the last Session about which I am concerned because they show too lax an attitude towards the way in which the taxpayers' money is being spent. Both examples concern the Services. One is the Jaguar aircraft, which is dealt with in our report, beginning at paragraph 27, and the other is the refitting of naval vessels, which is dealt with at paragraph 82. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) remarked that the conclus-
  1736
  ions of the PAC were often couched in modest language. That is so. The trouble is that sometimes very important conclusions are only fully understood by those who are familiar with the language and the nuances that we bring to bear in our reports.
  The purpose of the debates which we have every year should be to point up some of the understatements that appear in our reports. I will do this by using as an example the Jaguar aircraft, which is an Anglo-French project. The Services saw a need for a supersonic advanced pilot training aircraft, which they wanted to have available in 1975. They then decided that they needed it in 1972. Then they decided that what they really wanted was a tactical strike version of the aircraft. They wanted that in 1973. They were prepared to defer the trainer version until 1973–74. But they would still have more trainers than tactical strike versions. They were to have 55 per cent. trainers and 45 per cent. tactical strike aircraft. They then decided that the trainer version was too costly and that what they really needed as a trainer was a completely new and less sophisticated aircraft. So they decided that that was what they would have for use in 1976.
  When the Committee inquired about the situation it was explained that it was perfectly logical. We record at paragraph 34:
  "It thus proved possible to adjust the Anglo-French Jaguar programme to changing circumstances and requirements."
  Perhaps those concerned with the project were very lucky. Indeed, we make that remark in the following paragraph and we say:
  "They"—
  that is the Committee—
  "trust that in future the Ministry will … be able to obtain cost-effective aircraft from good planning rather than good fortune."
  But the attitude involved is still very worrying. Those who are concerned with aircraft contracts, which cost a vast amount of money, and those who are responsible for persuading Ministers to agree to the placing of orders for such aircraft, must adopt a much more rigorous and less haphazard method of drawing up their requirements.
  My second example is the special refitting of HMS "Tiger" and HMS "Blake". The purpose of the refits

  1737
  was to enable both cruisers to operate four Wessex helicopters. The refits were planned to take 18 months and to cost £5 million each. The "Blake" refit took over four years and cost over £7 million. The "Tiger" refit took over five years and cost over £13 million. Thus over £20 million was spent on refitting two cruisers over five years to deploy eight helicopters.
  The contrast between the Jaguar and the refits is interesting. Apparently the Jaguar is needed for a world that is moving so fast that the requirements cannot be foreseen from year to year—the requirements kept changing between 1964 and 1969—whereas poor old "Tiger" and "Blake" and their helicopters are inhabiting a world that is so slow-moving that it is possible to take five years to do something that was originally intended to be done in only 18 months.
  Both examples are equally regrettable. It is necessary when we come across examples of this kind to try to get behind the Ministers and civil servants to the people in the Services who, in my view, are largely responsible for this kind of planning. By that description I mean the serving officers on the Air Force and Admiralty Boards. They are very senior officers who are largely anonymous. Many of us do not know who they are as they are shielded by civil servants and Ministers. I suspect that they are regarded with a great deal of awe by Ministers and that they are inclined to say "We had better have the aircraft. If there is a chance of having it, let us have it. We will worry about what it is for later" or, to take the example of the "Tiger" and the "Blake", "If we can get the work started on the cruisers, let us get it in hand. If other things are more important, they can be put down the list."
  The country spends vast amounts of money on defence, which is a huge burden on individual taxpayers who have to find the money. The taxpayers hope when they fork out the money that it is needed and that it will be properly spent. In my view the Jaguar and the special refits throw doubt on both points. I hope that the comments in the PAC Report will be a salutary reminder to the highly-paid Service chiefs that they need to be very humble in the spending of these vast amounts of money over which
  1738
  they exercise a great deal of influence. It is not just the State's money which is being spent. It is not impersonal. It is the sum total of the hard-earned money of many millions of individuals who in the main live a very different kind of life to the over-privileged existence that many people, such as the Service chiefs on the Air Force and Admiralty boards, are able to live.
  The service officers on the Air Force and Admiralty boards exercise enormous influence on the shaping of defence budgets. It is important that they should not remain as anonymous as they are now. It should be possible for the House—and I hope that it will do so in future—to probe more deeply than it has been able to do so far and to reach behind the Ministers and the accounting officers, who in the main are the people whom the PAC cross-examines, and to deal directly with the people such as the serving officers I have mentioned, who often influence very decisively the decisions which are made on costly and expensive contracts such as the two to which I have referred.
  6.39 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): This is a traditional occasion, when the House rightly considers the careful studies which the Committee of Public Accounts has been carrying out. It is probably true that one of the traditions is that the debate tends to be very sparsely inhabited, and after an all-night sitting on the Consolidated Fund Bill one might have expected that tradition to be well honoured on this occasion. Yet the House has been reasonably full throughout a debate on matters as technical as those which we have been discussing.
  When one considers the attendance which we had only a couple of days ago on a day devoted to value added tax—I sat through that debate as I have sat through this one—one sees that the number of hon. Members present has been greater on this occasion, other than during the opening and closing speeches. This shows the interest that both those who have served on the Committee and a number of others take in these matters.
  Almost every hon. Member has referred to the regrettable absence of the right hon. Member for Manchester,

  1739
  Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) who has served as chairman of the Committee. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) said that the Committee had been stimulated, guided and amused by the right hon. Member. All of us have frequently been stimulated and amused by the right hon. Member; whether we have been guided on every occasion is perhaps another matter. But I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House in wishing him a rapid recovery. We hope to see him with us again very soon. This sentiment has been reflected in almost every speech and I am sure is shared by everyone. The right hon. Gentleman's character has imprinted itself on the deliberations of the Committee.
  The House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman could not have had a better deputy in moving this motion than the right hon. Member for Birkenhead, who carried out a very comprehensive survey of the work that the Committee has been doing, and took a particular theme on which to thread his remarks.
  I am reminded of a story that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham once recounted in the House. I cannot presume to tell it anywhere near as well as the right hon. Gentleman, but it concerned an examinee who noticed that previous examination papers had been mainly historical and proceeded to mug up the Kings of Israel in great detail for the coming examination. He was horrified to find, when he took the examination, that the questions were nearly all geographical, including the first. To that question he gave his answer, "I know nothing about geography but here is a list of the Kings of Israel."
  Any Financial Secretary replying to this debate is tempted to find himself in that position—namely, to say, "Enormous numbers of wide-ranging questions on the responsibilities of every conceivable Minister have been raised, but here is the speech that I intended to make anyway." That is not quite the case; I will try to reply to a number of specific questions, although a number of matters of policy do not arise on this occasion, because the Public Accounts Committee is concerned not with policy but with administration.
  1740
  It would be a mistake to suppose that the work of the Committee is without interest. I have a whole file of Press cuttings here of its various reports—notably, one in The Times of 11th September on public accountability and one in the Financial Times on 1st September headed "Learning from the Past". This is a theme which is now very much part of the work which the Public Accounts Committee has been doing in recent years under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cheetham. As has been said, it has to consider the experience of the past in order to learn lessons for the future. This is a very important matter and I have studied carefully the various lessons which have been brought to our attention on this occasion as on previous occasions.
  This debate is an annual occasion. It has been held every year bar one since 1960, in respect to the wishes of the House, although the Public Accounts Committee itself goes back even further—to 1861, when it was established on a motion of Mr. Gladstone. It is appointed each Session under Standing Order No. 86. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead pointed out that the Committee for this Session had not yet been established, although, as he appreciated, there is a later motion on to-day's Order Paper establishing the Committee for this Session. I have to confess that I am not conversant with the precedents as to how long a delay normally takes place, but it is on the Order Paper today and both the right hon. Gentleman's name and mine appear there.
  The first meeting of the Committee is something that I view with some interest, because I am told that, traditionally, the Financial Secretary, although on the Committee, is expected to appear only at the first meeting, unless something remarkable happens. So I was looking with interest to see when the motion would appear and the meeting be held.
  It is important that members of the Committee should examine the permanent heads of Government Departments in their capacity as accounting officers. In that respect, the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) stressed the need to ensure that there was a reasonable balance between those whom it was

  1741
  questioning and the Committee itself. It is important to remember the point of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) who said that, in a sense, the main authority of the Committee depended on the mere fact of its existence. This is true. All Government Departments are well aware of the power and authority of the Committee and it stems from the careful scrutiny that it gives to many areas.
  It is true that, in the early years, it was primarily concerned with accounting regularity and propriety. Although that is still the case, in recent years it has been more and more concerned with getting value for money. If a theme can be discerned in the Committee's work in recent years, it is that. That being so, a number of lessons have been learned on which, from time to time, the Committee has concentrated, although perhaps it has never actually brought together the lessons in an easily tabulated form.
  There has been reference in the past to problems of evaluation, in the context of the Atomic Energy Authority for example. There has been an increasing number of cases in which it is a question of the problems of risk evaluation. This stems from what the right hon. Member for Birkenhead was saying, that the Committee has been concerned—for example in the question of the RB211 or of the Jaguar aircraft—to look at what the reasons may be, either commercial or technical, whether in the commercial sphere or in defence, and how well they were evaluated, and the extent to which the Government succeed in getting the right means towards the ends which have been set out in policy statements.
  There is also the question of the extent to which Government Departments should become involved with the accounting procedures of particular companies which receive Government money. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) particularly referred to this.
  The hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick referred to the Jaguar project. The Ministry recognises the importance of being on the alert for changes in requirements which might affect development projects, whether they are on a collaborative basis or not. But it is not possible, he will agree, to avoid changes in requirements altogether, and the Royal Air Force
  1742
  is of necessity updating and adjusting its requirements in order to remain abreast of its defence commitments.
  The Procurement Executive exists to provide the necessary hardware at the right moment and it needs to react with flexibility. I should have thought that while the wording of that section of the report was framed perhaps with a little more subtlety than the usual bland expressions which are used, none the less this is an occasion when there is no ground for criticism. I think that in this case it is rather a question of the events turning out to be fortunate rather than unfortunate. The whole area is one in which there is great unpredictability, and the essential requirement is flexibility.
  It is fortunate here that there turned out to be the flexibility which was necessary in the changed circumstances. It is a little odd that whenever things turn out the wrong way we complain and when they turn out the right way we complain; and, that being so, I should have thought that there were grounds here for satisfaction rather than criticism at the out-turn, since it is the out-turn with which we are ultimately concerned. That is not to say that we should not do our best ex-ante rather than ex-post in anticipating problems as we go.
  A number of points have been raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). They do not all by any means refer to the Department of Trade and Industry, although on a number of occasions this afternoon the hon. Gentleman made a number of interventions concerning that Department. As he has recognised, a number of the Ministers in that Department are abroad, and this necessarily makes additional claims on their colleagues. However, I assure the House that no discourtesy is intended by their absence from the debate this afternoon. This is essentially a Treasury debate, and the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have also been present and, indeed, have heard the hon. Gentleman's speech.
  I shall endeavour to answer the specific points which the hon. Gentleman raised. He referred first of all to the situation of the technical cost officers. I understand that the position is considerably better that it was two years ago. He may have seen Sir Michael Cary's answer

  1743
  to question 1902 in the Third Report, which dealt with that matter. I understand that the situation has improved even further since that answer was given in March. But naturally this is a question of staffing and it is one which puts claims on scarce resources. It is a question of trying to achieve the best balance possible. The elasticity of supply in these circumstances is not always as great as one might hope, but I understand that the point was covered in the answer to which I referred and that the situation has improved since.
  The hon. Gentleman raised other points concerning Rolls-Royce and the role of Her Majesty's Government in the management changes at Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. He has had Questions on the Order Paper on this subject, to which he referred. He will be aware that the changes were made by the company, and naturally as the sole shareholder, the Government were concerned; they discussed the matter with the company and the changes were made with the Government's approval. I do not think that this is directly relevant to the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and it would be invidious, as my hon. Friend said earlier this week, to answer specific questions on the appointment of specific individuals. This is essentially a matter for the company.
  Similarly, on the question of the independent expert which the hon. Gentleman raised, this matter has been put in the hands of the independent expert, and the parties to the sale agreed on the procedure to be followed. I therefore do not think it would be appropriate for me on this occasion to go into greater detail.

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

  1. Northern Ireland (Financial Provisions) Act 1972.

  2. Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act 1972.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE (REPORTS)
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Higgins: To return to the points raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian, he asked what lessons had been learned from the experience at Ninewells and he related his question to a hospital which is to be built. I think there are several major issues connected with the construction of the new Ninewells Hospital and the new medical school at Dundee, which are in arbitration between the Eastern Regional Hospital Board and the contractors. As was indicated in the Treasury Minute of 8th November, 1967, in paragraphs 107 to 112 of the Fifth Report of the Public Accounts Committee 1966–1967, the form of building contract used in Ninewells demands the closest co-operation between the contractor and the design team, and the need to ensure effective collaboration in such circumstances has been generally noted.
  But the Ninewells experience also suggests that careful consideration should be given to the phasing of large building projects. Livingston Hospital will be built in phases, but the difficulties experienced at Ninewells may be less relevant to this project than would the experience gained in the construction of comparable district general hospitals in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Obviously, one would take into account the broad experience but one probably needs to check it rather more widely than the hon. Member suggested.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is, I think, rather a soothing answer, though I do not blame the Financial Secretary. The fact is that after all that has been said this afternoon about how effective the Public Accounts Committee is, this was raised for the first time nearly six years ago and still the position is more or less as bad as ever. The time has come for a hard look at what has happened. The relationship between the contractors and the design team must concern anybody who is concerned with public money.
  Mr. Higgins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I cannot go any further than I have gone on this occasion. I have taken a careful note of what he has said, but I am sure that he

  1745
  will appreciate that when an arbitration is going on it presents certain difficulties.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a final point which somewhat puzzled my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. He referred to a report in the Scotsman of 25th November. I understand that there have already been official denials of the story from the Atomic Energy Authority and it has been made quite clear by my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry that there is no truth in the report that Dounreay is an utter failure—I believe those were the words in the report—or that it will be closed within three years. The construction of the 250 megawatt fast reactor has been commenced and it will be commissioned next year. There is general agreement between the generating boards and the Atomic Energy Authority, and in three or four years the stage will have been reached where a decision to order the first commercial fast reactor should be possible. There will be a continuing programme of work at Dounreay for many years. I understand that this has already been put on the record and I was slightly puzzled why the hon. Member should feel it necessary to raise this point on this occasion. My understanding is that the point had already been covered and that, indeed, Press reports had made the position clear.
  Mr. Dalyell: It was necessary to put it on the record, as I said, because, as in so many cases, once mud is thrown it sticks on a project. The fact is that in the foreign Press the original report was rather widely quoted, but the denials, as far as I can see, were relatively unquoted. This may have been because of the news of the day, but I thought it was important that the Government should put on record precisely what is the situation about the reactor.
  Mr. Higgins: Again, I understand what the hon. Member says. I must say that I do not think it is a unique experience, nor, alas, is it one which the Public Accounts Committee or myself will easily rectify.
  I think I am right in saying that those are the points which the hon. Member for West Lothian raised, and I should like now to say a word or two about a matter raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and on which comments were
  1746
  made also by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), and that is the question of the Sugar Board.
  I do not think there is much I can add at this stage to the information already before the House in the shape of the Treasury Minute. Transferring of raw sugar from rural beet factories to refineries at the ports is less economic than refining the sugar as a continuous process. This is not in dispute, but the issue cannot be tackled in isolation, as the Committee recognised. Total supplies are set by the needs to refine sugar. More refined sugar from beet factories must lower output at the port refineries, with consequent surplus capacity and loss of efficiency.
  I think that probably the right hon. Gentleman and I are familiar, in broad economic terms, with what the problems are here. I am speaking of particular technical and economic problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire referred to the use of the expression "efficient" or "efficiency" in the Treasury Minute. Of course, there is a number of variable factors here. The word "efficient" covers a number of different economic concepts. It may be in terms of costs of one plant against those of another in a particular location working at a particular capacity, or it may be a question of how costs vary as between the use of plants at different levels of capacity. These are familiar problems of economics and location theory. The position is that the Committee looked at it; it has been brought very carefully to our attention.
  I have taken note, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will have taken note, of what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire said. The House will appreciate that as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture hopes to be able to make an announcement about our consultations in due course, I ought not to be expected to say more than I have already said at this moment, but we shall certainly very much bear in mind the points which the Committee of Public Accounts made in its Report. Obviously the question of ensuring that the job is done as efficiently as possible is one which will be in the forefront of our minds.

  1747
  I come to another point raised by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead. It was also mentioned, I recollect, by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I am sorry that I did not cover it in my earlier round up of the points the hon. Member made, but I think he mentioned it as part of the more general debate. I do not wish to quarrel with anything in this report on the circumstances surrounding the original decision that the Government should contribute to the launching costs of the RB211 and the unhappy events leading up to the appointment of the receiver at Rolls-Royce in February, 1971. These events have been set out in the Government's White Paper on Rolls-Royce Ltd. and on the RB211 aeroengine—Cmnd. 4860. The Government accept the main recommendations of the Committee. They broadly endorse the existing policy.
  As a general rule the Government are concerned that any aerospace company receiving launching aid must carry the primary responsibility for the technical and commercial success of the project and accordingly bear the cost of any technical difficulties. It is, therefore, important to ensure before giving launching aid that the company has the necessary financial strength to carry these risks. There may be particular cases which deserve particular and specific analysis and where the exact provision will need to be related to the circumstances to ensure that sufficient incentive is retained to encourage the company towards efficiency and profitability.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan) raised a number of points on this and the broader question of Government participation in whole or in part in companies. This has been a matter of great concern to the PAC now for several years. I shall return to that point in my concluding remarks.
  What I would like first to do is to take up one or two of the points which were raised about the shipbuilding industry. The Committee spent a considerable time in examining the Department of Trade and Industry on the financial assistance given to shipbuilding, both by the Shipbuilding Industry Board and by the Government. It paid particular attention to the assistance given to Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff
  1748
  and Cammell Laird. From this examination I think it true that the committee distilled two main lessons, that further assistance should be directed more effectively towards establishing a viable shipbuilding industry and should not be provided solely to meet losses, and that there should be adequate monitoring by the Government of the performance and prospects of companies receiving Government assistance These are obviously very important points.
  The hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) raised a number of points on the shipbuilding industry. I think I would be fair to him if I said to him that they seemed to me to be points of policy rather than of administration, although he has been concerned with looking at actual administration. In this debate we are not concerned with policy but with the report of the Committee.
  Mr. Douglas: I wonder where one ends and the other begins. I was concerned, as I think the Minister will accept, to indicate how we could have a viable industry by going for a market which is proven.
  Mr. Higgins: I agree that there is some problem in deciding where policy ends and administration begins, but my impression is that this was not a line which the Committee itself had trouble in drawing, and it is not one which on many occasions this House has trouble in drawing. I would not suggest that what the hon. Member said was out of order; it would be most unfair of me to do that. All I am saying is that if I were to try to answer the questions he raised I might be out of order.
  I want to take up one point to which he referred, the question of the losses and the question of monitoring a company's performance. Very large sums of assistance were given to UCS and Harland and Wolff both by the SIB and directly by the Government but, as, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) pointed out, there were considerations of employment as well as the narrower question, and this is something to which the Treasury Minute refers as well. It would be a mistake to overlook the fact that most of the SIB assistance to the industry went towards the costs of reorganisation and of capital expenditure on new facilities,

  1749
  including modern shipyard facilities at Harland and Wolff. Such assistance was clearly directed to improving the industry's competitive position, and many of the new facilities are already showing their effect in increased efficiency. The SIB also helped the industry, as the Committee recognises, to sustain a competitive rôle by promoting improvements in management and financial control and encouraging greater collaboration from the work force.
  These are very broad issues. What we have done meanwhile is to introduce a scheme of temporary financial assistance to the industry to safeguard employment and to provide a period of stability. As the House will know, shipbuilders are eligible for the full range of assistance under the Industry Act, and the Government are prepared to use their powers to give selective assistance to encourage closer collaboration between shipowners and shipbuilders, to assist modernisation of United Kingdom shipyards, and to improve efficiency in both industries.
  The other thing is that I would assure the House that the Government will do all that they can to make certain that there is adequate appraisal of applications for such assistance and adequate monitoring of the firms which receive it. The ability of the Department of Trade and Industry—this is touching a little on the question of technical officers raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian—to carry out such appraisal and monitoring has been strengthened by the formation of the Industrial Development Unit, whose staff has been drawn from the City and from industry, and will have practical, financial and commercial skills. My right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to this on 22nd March, at col. 1547 of HANSARD.
  This is an area where it is difficult to recruit the right people, and we are doing all we can to ensure that those who are needed to monitor projects such as this are available and can do the kind of job which the PAC is anxious to do.
  I shall not go into details, because the House is well aware of the recent developments on the Upper Clyde with regard to Govan Shipbuilders and the Marathon Shipbuilding Company. But the Government have, in addition to that, agreed
  1750
  to provide assistance for major modernisation schemes with Harland and Wolff and Cammell Laird, and both these projects are going ahead. The provision of the new facilities will result in specific improvements in productivity, and again we shall monitor the performance as carefully as we can.
  I want finally to turn to the points raised by a number of hon. Members, among them the hon. and learned Member for Northampton and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove. My hon. Friend the Member for Hove put his finger on the expression which points the real dilemma we face here. He used the expression, "If we are in for a penny, are we in for a £?". He went on to say why there are some circumstances in which one can go in for a certain amount and then stop. What I think is now generally recognised is that it is important that the precise position should be made clear. My right hon. Friend referred to Beagle Aircraft. As he knows, Beagle Aircraft was operating at a particular airport close to both his constituency and mine, and that particular event was one about which the Public Accounts Committee has been concerned.
  But on the surveillance of firms covered in paragraphs 98–99 of the Third Report from the Public Accounts Committee the Committee makes various statements, and we accept what it says about the need to secure a sufficient flow of information without diminishing the responsibilities of directors or management, and without being unduly inhibited by Section 332 of the Companies Act 1948. This was a point to which the Public Accounts Committee paid considerable attention.
  The House will agree that the objectives must be, first, to ensure that public funds are used for the purposes for which they have been made available; secondly, to assist the success of the objectives for which the funds were supplied; and thirdly, to limit the call on public funds to achieve that purpose.
  Measures are being taken to strengthen further the Government's expertise in these matters and to enable the Government to be in a position to call for appropriate necessary information to secure these objectives. But it will not be easy to achieve the objective of having

  1751
  sufficient information upon a company's affairs without some risk of appearing to take over responsibility for its conduct and liability for the consequences of the management or the directors. This has been recognised throughout the debate today and has been a recurring theme throughout our discussions. Naturally the problem varies according to the nature of the Government's stake and the nature of the company concerned. But it is important, as far as one is able, to hit the right balance in each individual case.
  This is a tremendously difficult matter. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead recognises this from his previous experience as a Minister. It is tremendously difficult to judge. That being so, we obviously do not want to avoid this difficulty—indeed, I do not believe that it can be avoided—or the difficulties which might flow from Section 332 of the Companies Act by putting our heads in the sand and just not wanting to know what is going on.
  We would intend to obtain whatever information we judge necessary to achieve the objectives I have mentioned. We also feel that although clearly we must take into account Section 332 of the Companies Act, it need not necessarily inhibit the Government from providing or considering the provision of assistance in the first place; though the question of making sure the position is clear is one which is of great importance and one of the lessons we can learn from the experience of the past. It is one to which the Public Accounts Committee has particularly brought the attention of the Government and the House.
  This is a difficult area of law and one cannot lay down simple, hard and fast rules on which to operate. One needs to look at the individual cases, to take into account the various experiences which we have had and to draw lessons from them.
  On that note, which I think is very consistent with both the line taken by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham and, indeed, the theme taken up by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead in opening the debate, it would be appropriate for me to conclude.
  The debate will be generally recognised to have been a very wide-ranging debate
  1752
  indeed, and one which has raised problems which are of great difficulty and for which we must seek to find solutions. The analysis of these problems has been carried out, both in detailed questions and in seeking to draw from general lessons, by the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that the House is grateful to all those hon. Members who have served on it with such diligence and such skill.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of the First, Second and Third Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in the last Session of Parliament and of the Treasury Minute on those Reports (Command Paper No. 5126).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES)
7.17 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): I beg to move,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved.
Under the terms of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act, treaties entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January, 1972 cannot be regarded as Community treaties as defined in the Act unless they are specified in an Order in Council. The draft of such Orders in Council must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. An Order in Council under Section 1(3) of the Act may specify any number of treaties entered into by Her Majesty's Government. The House may agree that it is most economical of parliamentary time if several treaties are dealt with in one order rather than that there should be a separate order for each.
The present order is the first Order in Council to be introduced specifying Community treaties under Section 1(3) of the Act. The only major treaties which have been entered into by the United Kingdom in a Community context since 22nd January 1972 and which Her Majesty's Government propose should be included in the schedule to the present order are the European Coal and Steel

1753
Community agreements which were concluded with Austria, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, together with an additional agreement concerning the validity for Liechtenstein of the agreement with Switzerland.
The English texts of those agreements were laid before the House on 16th November. They were signed in Brussels on 22nd July 1972 and will enter into force on 1st January 1973, provided that all parties have notified completion of the necessary procedures by that date. Otherwise they will enter into force at a later date, not later than 1st January 1974.
They were all signed by the present member States of the ECSC and the United Kingdom and the other acceding States, which will be member States of the ECSC when the agreements come into force. In the case of Austria, Portugal and Sweden, the ECSC itself also signed.
The order is straightforward. I hope that it can be approved by the House without a prolonged debate, in spite of the early hour at which it is being taken.
The ECSC/EFTA non-candidate agreements to which Her Majesty's Government are signatories are undoubtedly new treaties falling within the scope of Section 1(3) of the Act. The terms of Section 1(3) have been closely followed in tabling this draft Order in Council, which can become a statutory instrument only after it has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Eric G. Varley: The Minister has come to the House on a quiet Thursday with an innocent-looking little order to ratify what some believe to be innocent-looking treaties with our ex-EFTA partners. Yet all but one of these treaties, the exception being Iceland, embody a diminution of sovereignty for the British Government and further reduce governmental control over two basic public industries.
The Minister rather complacently gave the impression that the order would go through "on the nod". Furthermore, the treaties prove what many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have contended and what the Government have persistently denied, namely, that many of the benefits associated with the EEC could have been obtained without Britain paying the full
1754
and daunting price of full membership, a price which was quantified in Brussels this week by the Minister of State, Treasury at about £250 million in the first year. So we find that customs duties between Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the EEC are to be phased out by 1st July 1977 on a vast range of coal and steel products. The products are detailed in the annexes to the treaties.
Those countries, without paying the price which the Minister of State mentioned, are to enjoy tariff-free trade on all these dozens of products. Britain could have had the same arrangement and I believe that we could have had it with the full-hearted consent of the British Parliament and people. However, the Prime Minister was obsessed with getting full membership. At least the treaties remove from the Prime Minister what was an obsession of his some months ago. Hon. Members will recall that famous Friday when he told the British Steel Corporation that it had to reduce its price increase at a stroke. We all know that on that particular day and for weeks afterwards he would not permit us to forget what he had done.
We believe it is right that the British Government should have control over the pricing policies of the nationalised industries. That is one of the reasons why we advocate public ownership. They can then influence the economy in whatever direction they believe necessary. An examination of the treaties shows that the Government intend to surrender even more control over the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation not only to the European Coal and Steel Community, which will happen in 25 days' time, but also to some of the countries mentioned in the order.
What is becoming more and more interesting, however, is what will happen when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, for example, comes to the House very soon to tell us about his negotiations with the European Community and with the Commission, particularly concerning the position of steel prices during the freeze period. We all recognise with some fascination the leaks that are coming out of Brussels, not all of them authoritative, I am sure. There was a report in The Times yesterday by Mr. David Cross who informatively

1755
revealed that agreement would be reached in a day or two. When these negotiations are complete and agreement is reached, the Government will no doubt heave a sigh of relief.
Assuming, however, that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office get the European Commission and the ECSC to agree to the present freeze on steel prices, will the Minister say—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): The hon. Member is now moving beyond the scope of the order and it would be wrong not to draw his attention to that fact, because he is now asking the Minister to go out of order in reply. I hope that the hon. Member will restrict his remarks to the order.
Mr. Varley: I had hoped to show the connection in a moment or two, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was seeking to show that as a result of our entry to Europe on 1st January it will be necessary to reach an agreement with the ECSC. It is common knowledge that we cannot alter our prices unilaterally and that we must go to the Commission for permission. That process is taking place at the moment. Under the treaties there is also provision for the setting up of joint committees. One of the articles in these treaties suggests that there should be no public aid
"which distorts or threatens to distort competion by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods."
If we get that arrangement, we should certainly have to go to those countries for their permission too.
The treaties are categorical. Article 19 of the treaty relating to Austria, Portugal and Sweden and Article 18 of the treaty concerning Switzerland and Liechtenstein give these countries a veto over certain activities by the National Coal Board and the British Steel Corporation. The articles declare that among the practices
"incompatible with the proper functioning of the Agreement "
is any public aid
"which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods."
1756
This formula relates directly to the freezing of prices by the BSC which in this situation is requesting compensation for losses incurred as a result of holding down prices under the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act. Such compensation, which is absolutely essential and must be forthcoming, is directly prohibited under the treaties.
No doubt the Minister will claim that Article 23 of the treaty with Austria, Portugal and Sweden and Article 22 of the treaty with Switzerland and Liechtenstein provide for permission to be granted for appropriate measures to be taken if serious disturbances arise in any sector of the economy. The freeze was brought in to cope with precisely such a serious disturbance in the economy.
But there appears to be a loophole in the treaties, so we may be able to breathe freely. The Government are permitted only to take these so-called appropriate measures under conditions and procedures which are laid down in the treaties in great detail. Sanctions can be imposed in specified circumstances and the whole process is supervised by joint committees which are set up separately under each of the relevant treaties. It is necessary, therefore, to ask the Minister certain questions and to have certain replies before we assent to the order.
The treaties come into force on 1st January. Presumably the joint committees will have to convene very soon afterwards. The agreements embodying the treaties were made four months ago. Have preliminary consultations taken place with the countries concerned to ensure that the joint committees will give speedy consent to the freeze arrangements where they are affected by the treaties? What shall we do if the joint committees demand a speedy end to the freeze arrangements as they affect steel and coal? On the one hand the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act over-rides the treaties, but on the other hand the countries concerned can demand through the joint committees that sanctions be imposed. This raises a crucial question. How will the Government's prices policy in the post-freeze period be affected? Will the joint committees be in a position to consider this too? The question needs an urgent answer where our membership of the ECSC is concerned but we now

1757
find that we need an answer in relation to the treaties we are at present discussing.
There is another important aspect. The House was promised that within a very short time a Coal Industry Bill would be presented. Only this afternoon the Leader of the House said that there would be a statement on Monday about such a Bill and that it would be given its Second Reading before the Christmas Recess. We anticipate that it will provide the NCB with large sums of money which we consider essential for the proper functioning of the industry. We arc certainly anxious that the Bill should be introduced, and provided that it is sensibly framed we shall assist in getting it through as quickly as possible. But with the best will in the world we cannot get it on to the Statute Book before 1st January.
These treaties come into force on 1st January. They specifically prohibit any public aid
"which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings",
and the relevant articles can be invoked. Will the Coal Industry Bill be compatible with the terms of the treaties or will there have to be included in it a clause similar to the provision which appears in the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act? It is preposterous and intolerable that these questions have to be raised, and I regret that I have to raise them with a Foreign Office Minister. It would have been better had we had assistance from the Department of Trade and Industry which, as the Minister acknowledged, covers a vast range of coal and steel products. This matter has to be raised tonight because of the way in which the European Communities Act was dragooned through Parliament. The questions need to be answered and I hope that the Minister will undertake to answer them, perhaps by writing to me.
We know to our cost that a measure of control over the running of the coal and steel industries has passed from this elected Parliament to the European Commission, but under the order a measure of control over the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board is to be exercised by Austria, Sweden, Portugal, Switzerland and tiny Liechtenstein. That is the pickle into which this im-
1758
provident Government have got themselves with these industries. We want to know the true position and we should be grateful for answers to our questions.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: The Minister might have given us rather more information than he gave at the start of the debate. He seemed anxious that the House should not know what the Government are doing and what is going on. If that is not so, I am sure that he will reply to the questions addressed to him.
I wish to ask a formal question arising out of the order. Why is Finland not included amongst the other EFTA countries which appear to have made agreements with the European Coal and Steel Community? I know that Finland is a member of Fin-EFTA and not EFTA proper, but I do not see that that is a substantial reason for Finland not being included. Is there perhaps another agreement that has not seen the light of day here?
The substantial question that I want to ask follows from what my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) said. Is the effective consequence of the order that something approaching free trade in iron and steel and coal products will be established between all the EFTA countries mentioned here and the European Coal and Steel Community, which means the EEC for the purpose of this debate?
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend is moving on from an interesting point which requires slightly more exploration. He asked why Finland is excluded. Each of the treaties names Norway as a participant, and one can only wonder what is the validity of treaties which name as a member of the European Coal and Steel Community a country which has specifically refused to participate in the EEC.
Mr. Jay: That question is for the Minister to answer, but I suppose that some future arrangement will be made between Norway and the Community. Perhaps we can be enlightened about that also.
Is the effect of these agreements and the order that free trade in the products

1759
concerned, both ways, will now be established between the EFTA countries and, in effect, the EEC? For instance, will it be possible for steel products produced in Sweden to be exported into EEC countries tariff free, as they will be from this and other EEC countries and vice versa?
If that is so, the result of the whole transaction is extraordinary. It means that all the other EFTA non-candidate countries obtain exactly the same advantages as we do in the EEC by these agreements, but that they do not have to pay any of the price in terms of contributions to the EEC budget, the restrictions of the common agricultural policy and the corruption of their parliamentary machines by the bureaucratic apparatus in Brussels.
That is an extraordinary result. Here we are looking only at iron and steel and coal products, but the same is true for the whole range of industrial products as between EFTA and EEC countries. Will the Minister confirm that over a large range of products that is the substantial result? If it is, will he explain what advantage Britain has gained compared with non-candidate countries by becoming a member of the EEC?
7.39 p.m.
Mr. John Roper: I hope that it will always be possible for the House to have as much time as it appears to have tonight to debate EEC orders, particularly when they are concerned with treaties. I hope that I am right in assuming that the affirmative procedure will always be used for future treaties so that the House will be able to have appropriate debates.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) has referred to the agreement with Finland. I understand that an agreement with Finland was initialled at the same time as the agreement with other EFTA partners. I assume that when the Finnish Government decide to sign it, it will be possible for the House to consider that agreement in the same way as we are considering the others tonight. Will the Minister confirm that a similar agreement was initialled but that the Finnish Government have not as yet decided to sign it?
Will the House have a chance to discuss before Christmas the EEC agree-
1760
ments reached with the EFTA countries on the same day as the ECSC agreements were reached? They are in some ways more important than the treaties which we are considering today. I realise that if I pursue that point further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall incur your wrath and move out of order.
Austria, Portugal and Sweden have agreed to special provisions on prices and transport rates on the lines of the ECSC system which we shall be forced to apply from 1st January unless the Government can get an exception. Article 20 of the treaty relating to Austria, Portugal and Sweden states that the Community will apply Article 60 of the ECSC treaty to pricing and transport rates. Why is Switzerland not forced to apply the pricing and transport rate systems which Austria, Portugal and Sweden have been obliged to apply? One might think initially, given its geographical position, that Switzerland was more likely to be obliged to apply the system. Will the Minister tell us why the Swiss Treaty is different from the others?
Will the Minister explain in detail the reasons for the protocols to the treaties with Austria, Portugal and Sweden? The protocols allow those countries to operate a timetable for the reduction of duties. This applies particularly to Portugal and Austria. There are fewer exceptions for Sweden. It would be helpful to know why Sweden has been allowed a slower rate of reduction in duties than those which I assume will apply to this country as we go into the full ECSC.
The Minister mentioned in moving the order that for three of the EFTA members—Austria, Portugal and Sweden—the agreements have been reached between member States of the enlarged Community, and the Community, and the country concerned. For some reason the Icelandic and Swiss agreements have been made with the member States of the Community alone and not with the Community itself. I realise that an important technical point of international law may be involved, but I hope that the Minister will explain the difference between the various treaties.
7.44 p.m.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: If I may, I will, through the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West

1761
(Mr. Hawkins), address a brief message to the Patronage Secretary. The Government are fortunate that Opposition Members are so well behaved and orderly that they do not intend to force a Division on the order. If we did force a Division, there is no doubt that the Government would have insufficient Members present and the order would fall and have to be debated on another occasion. The message I send to the Patronage Secretary is that he may not be so fortunate on another occasion—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing this occasion.
Mr. Kaufman: It is because of this occasion that I feel it necessary to deliver these admonitory words. It is an abuse of Parliament that an order as weighty as this, on which two of my hon. Friends, one a pro-Marketeer and the other an anti-Marketeer, and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) have asked important questions, for a Foreign Office Minister, and not a Minister who knows about the contents of these treaties, to ask the House to accept the order in a speech lasting four minutes.
The order ties our coal and steel industries hand and foot to the whims of the Prince of Liechtenstein, so that in future he will have a greater say in the pricing policy of the steel industry than Lord Melchett and a greater say in what aid can be given to our coal industry than Mr. Derek Ezrah. I regard this as utterly preposterous.
If this is a foretaste of the way we shall continue while this country is a temporary member of the EEC, we have taken a very bad way. I trust that the Minister, having introduced the order in so insulting a way—four minutes on five treaties of enormous significance—will pay some attention to the weighty questions which have been put in detail about the future of our coal and steel industries. If we cannot get that kind of courtesy on this order then, regardless of our Chief Whip, several of us will have to behave in an entirely different way when similar orders are before the House.
7.47 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Royle: I find the remarks of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is a dis-
1762
tinguished Member of this House of Commons, quite extraordinary. I came to the House 20 minutes ago and introduced the order in what I thought was a perfectly courteous manner. I explained the details and the outline of what the order did. I then sat down and listened to the extremely constructive remarks and questions of his hon. Friends, and I will in due course endeavour to answer them.
The idea that the Government are pushing through the order in two minutes is the most bizarre I have heard in the 15 years I have been in the House. We are able to sit until 11.30 p.m. to discuss the order. I am available and I am only too happy to sit here until 11.30 p.m. If the hon. Gentleman has any constructive suggestions or remarks to make, I shall be happy to sit here until 11.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman implies that the Government are pushing through the order and bulldozing the House. I do not see the rest of his hon. Friends sitting on the benches opposite ready to object at the way the Government are bulldozing through the order. I am delighted to see the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, three of whom have put responsible questions to me, because they are closely interested either in the development of the Community or have views of their own. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) rightly spoke for his party in asking certain questions, and I am here to reply.
I cannot accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ardwick, either that the Government are bulldozing through the order or that I have been discourteous. I hope that he will withdraw the remarks that he made in the last few minutes.
Mr. Kaufman: I have clearly upset the hon. Gentleman. I have no desire to do so. I agree that the manner in which he introduced the order was courtesy itself, but a four-minute warning about five treaties with a request that we should pass them through immediately is unsatisfactory. The last thing I wish to do is to offend the hon. Gentleman. I would choose others of his hon. and right hon. Friends to offend rather than him. I gladly give him any apology he requests.
Mr. Royle: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's courteous remark, but I have never asked the House to pass the order immediately or in four minutes. Indeed, as I have said, we have three and a half hours left in which to debate it and I am happy to stay here until 11.30 p.m. in order to reply.
But perhaps I can turn now to some of the questions put in the debate. This is not an innocent order. It was never intended to be. It is necessary, as I have said, following the signing of the treaty.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield expressed his strong feeling that we need not have bothered to go through the motions of joining the Community but could have remained outside and got on the bandwagon with the rest of the EFTA countries and involved ourselves with the Community as members of a free trade grouping. That is not realistic. It would not have been possible because those countries were able to negotiate these specific arrangements for themselves with the Community as a result of and in the context of enlargement of the Community with the arrival of Britain, Denmark and the Republic of Ireland as full members. The hon. Gentleman knows that it would not have been possible to have negotiated this matter in isolation.
Mr. Jay: That is a most preposterous argument. If it is possible for these EFTA countries to negotiate a free trade area agreement with a Community of Nine, it would have been just as possible to negotiate it with a Community of Six. There is no technical, economic or political difficulty about that. There is no substance in what the hon. Gentleman is saying.
Mr. Royle: The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Labour Government who originally applied for agreement of the Community to the enlargement of the Community. I do not recall that Government applying for free trade arrangements as such. I voted with the Labour Government on that occasion. I enjoyed doing it as a staunch supporter of British entry. We voted to open negotiations to join as full members. The present Government continued the process after the General Election.
I know the right hon. Gentleman's views on this subject. But I think that
1764
there is another aspect which he did not mention. I respect his views—he has held to them for many years. But these other countries—the EFTA countries—outside the Community do not, as members of a free trade area linked to the Community, have any control or any say in the decisions of the Community. We as full members are in the position of having a say in the development of the Community. The right hon. Gentleman knows that and I hesitate to repeat it because it has been said so many times, but it is another important aspect of our entry into the enlarged Community.
Mr. Jay: The hon. Gentleman may or may not remember correctly what happened five or six years ago, but he has given no reason now for supposing that it would not have been possible for this country to have reached an agreement such as this.
Mr. Royle: The Government's view was that it was unrealistic and indeed not in Britain's interest to appear to try to be a part or to apply to be a part of a free trade area linked with the Community. We wished to be full members and thereby to play an important part in the development of the Community.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield felt that the order was in some way being bulldozed through the House. He will remember the vote which took place in October 1971 on the principle of joining the Community. The majority of 112 consisted of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. He indicated that the Government might have bulldozed the subsequent legislation through. I cannot accept that. There were very many long debates. There was a long Committee stage. The debate on Second Reading was the longest such debate that I can recall in my parliamentary career. There was another debate on Third Reading. The legislation followed the overwhelming vote in favour of the principle of British entry. There was a very large majority for entry in another place—running into hundreds. A great deal of time was devoted to the legislation, when detailed opposition came from right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It has now become an Act, and on 1st January Britain will be a member of the Community.

1765
The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of steel prices—a fair point. There is great concern in the House about the matter. I assure him that whether I were a Minister from the Department of Trade and Industry or a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office the answer would be the same. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was questioned in the House on the subject on 4th December. He explained that we are involved in discussions on the matter and that a statement will be made soon. It is not for me to go any further than that at present. But I have taken the point put by the hon. Gentleman. I understand the concern which has been expressed, but we must await the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend soon.
Mr. Jay: Next week?
Mr. Royle: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. As a distinguished former President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Gentleman knows that these matters are for the Leader of the House of any Government.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield queried the date on which the treaties come into force. I confirm that it is 1st January 1973. Any preliminary consultations which may take place regarding the freeze arrangements which he mentioned are all included in the statement which my right hon. Friend will make, and there is no need for me to cover that aspect. But the hon. Gentleman can be assured that we have hoisted his concern on board.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick referred to Leichtenstein, feeling that somehow we were going to come under that Principality. I do not think he believes that. The reason for having an additional agreement for Liechtenstein is that the terms of the agreement establishing a customs union between Switzerland and Leichtenstein would not automatically have extended to the agreement made between the member States of the ECSC and Switzerland and Liechtenstein. An additional agreement extending its validity was therefore necessary. That is why specific mention is made of Liechtenstein.
Mr. Roper: Could the hon. Gentleman make clear whether the membership not of Liechtenstein but of the other countries in the joint committee to be set up between those countries and the Community will permit the governments of those countries to carry out the sort of things which my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) suggested in relation to coal and steel policy in this country?
Mr. Royle: Of course it will not give them that opportunity.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North raised the question of the position of Finland and Norway. I am glad he raised these points because they are important. In the case of Norway, the agreements were signed on 2nd July, 1972, while Norway was still an applicant for accession to the Community. That was before the Norwegian referendum.
The texts laid before Parliament are the texts as they were signed. It would not be correct for us unilaterally to make any changes in the documents themselves. They will, however, no doubt be scrutinised in due course by all the signatories, and amendments will be proposed to remove the references to Norway in the texts. They will come into force on 1st January, providing that the contracting parties have informed each other before then that the procedures necessary for this have been completed. Otherwise, in accordance with the provisions in the agreement, they will enter into force at a later date but not later than 1st January, 1974. It is intended to negotiate similar EEC and ECSC agreements with Norway and negotiations will begin in the new year. When this is done we shall consider the need for a further Order in Council.
Mr. Jay: It just shows.
Mr. Royle: What I have explained is the situation in relation to Norway.
Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman coming to Finland? It was Finland that I asked about.
Mr. Royle: An agreement between the member States of the enlarged ECSC of the one part and of Finland of the other part was initialled on 22nd July, 1972, but cannot be included in the present Order in Council because it has not yet been

1767
signed by the contracting parties. The right hon. Gentleman may ask why it has not yet been signed. I anticipate his question by pointing out that it is a matter for the Finnish Government and it is impossible for me as a British Minister to reply on their behalf.
Another question mainly concerned whether other treaties would call for an Order in Council. Treaties which call for Orders in Council under the second limb of Section 1(3)—that is, post-23rd January 1972 treaties entered into by the United Kingdom—must be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that that meets the point. Treaties entered into by the Community without the United Kingdom as a co-signatory are not subject to affirmative resolution under Section 1(3) for the reasons explained during the passage of the Act.
I ask the House to accept that there is no intention by the Government at any time to bulldoze these important matters through the House. We welcome discussion on treaties and orders such as the one before us tonight.
The agreements provide for the continuation of free trade in coal and most iron and steel products between the United Kingdom and the EFTA non-candidates. In 1971 we exported about £21 million worth of these products to the non-candidates. The agreements provide a means of safeguarding and perhaps increasing this valuable trade. Moreover, they play their part—so far as iron and steel are concerned—in the creation of a wide trading area in Western Europe.
Mr. Roper: I included a number of detailed questions in my speech, particularly referring to the protocols and the reason for the slow reduction of tariff barriers by some of the co-signatories of the treaties. I realise that they are points of detail. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reply to them in some other way after the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1972, a draft of which was laid before the House on 22nd November, be approved.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
The Committee of Public Accounts was nominated of Mr. Michael Barnes, Sir Edward Brown, Mr. Richard Buchanan, Mr. Edmund Dell, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, Mr. James Lamond, Mr. Harold Lever, Mr. Martin Maddan, Mr. Paget, Miss Quennell, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Mr. Julian Ridsdale, and Sir John Rodgers be Members.
Ordered, That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Committee on 15th May, and reported to the House on 24th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, Thas this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Fortescue.]

SOUTH-EAST ESSEX (ENVIRONMENT)
8.6 p.m.
Sir Bernard Braine: It cannot be disputed that South-East Essex, which I have had the honour to represent for many years, has grown faster than almost any other part of the country in the past decade, or that it will continue to grow very rapidly in the decade ahead. The process of growth will be accelerated by the development of the third London airport and a new container seaport on land reclaimed from the sea off Foulness Island, which is also in my constituency.
All this will bring massive change to the environment in which our existing and future population will live. It is my intention, as the constituency Member most closely concerned, to ensure that as far as is humanly possible such change is for the better rather than for the worse. That is why I have consistently argued that planning decisions in South-East Essex should be made not in isolation but with regard to the totality of their effect upon our environment as a whole, bearing in mind that the capacity of the area to take growth on the scale expected is limited. It is because there is

1769
still some doubt in my mind about this that I raise the matter now and seek from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State certain specific assurances.
Our environment in South-East Essex is already under assault from a number of directions. I should like to give the House just four examples. I could give more, but I shall concentrate on those. First, my hon. Friend will recall the decision last year to permit Occidental Oil to establish a large refinery on Canvey Island, where over 28,000 of my constituents have their homes. That was despite strong opposition from both the residents and the local authorities. My hon. Friend will be aware that all around my constituency there is a steady buildup of refinery capacity, that the neighbouring refineries at Coryton and Shell-haven are being allowed to double their output that the refinery opposite us on the Isle of Grain is being allowed to treble its output and that a new refinery is to be built at Cliffe.
Whether or not all that means an increase in atmospheric pollution harmful to health, it certainly means an increase in unpleasantness. On certain days noxious smells extend over a wide area. It means too an increase in the heavy tanker traffic in our congested river lanes and the building up of industrial fire risks in an area where the existing level is already too high. I am mentioning only the refineries, but I could talk also about oil-fired power stations.
Yet against that background we are faced with another application from another international oil company, United Refineries, to build a second refinery on Canvey Island, where, I repeat, 28,000 people have their homes, next door to the Occidental site and even nearer to the residential areas. This application, too, is opposed by the public and the local authorities, and in this connection we are waiting to see whether, when it comes to the point, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State will demonstrate his concern for our environment.
On this I have one very simple question to put to my hon. Friend. Is there no limit to the number of installations of this kind, with all their attendant environmental disadvantages and risks, that can be planted down within sight and smell
1770
of residential areas, or will my hon. Friend concede that we already have more than our fair share of them?
Already we are alarmed by public statements made by a Mr. John Black, who I understand is the Port of London Authority's Maplin Director, which were published in the Evening Echo on 24th November. When questioned on the proposal to site an oil terminal at the Maplin container port, which would be constructed alongside the new airport, Mr. Black is reported to have agreed that this would
"eventually result in a vast increase in the throughput of oil through the Thamesside refineries".
He asserted that while at present the amount of oil processed via the Thames was limited by the size of tankers using the estuary and the Channel, the establishment of an oil terminal at Maplin would do much to remove these restrictions and eventually fully-laden tankers of up to half a million tons could be handled there. That would mean that the need for Thamesside oil refineries would be even greater.
Mr. Black admitted that
"before any actual work can start we must of course submit detailed plans and give information concerning anticipated traffic, costs and financial estimates showing whether the suggested developments were viable propositions, but we have not yet got approval to start actual construction work".
I hope that, against the threat that Mr. Black's earlier words implied, approval will certainly not be given.
Mr. Black is clearly warning us to expect an increase in the number of refineries we must suffer. Who authorised him to make such statements? I ask my hon. Friend to repudiate any suggestion that the Port of London Authority can predetermine the pattern of refineries in an area where hundreds of thousands of people have established their homes and where, when the airport is developed, hundreds of thousands more are coming to live.
If extra refinery capacity is needed—and I have no doubt that the economy of the country needs it—I suggest that it be at Maplin itself, although other hon. Members may suggest that there are other parts of the country where such installations would be warmly welcomed. It is imperative that my hon. Friend takes firm control of the situation.

1771
My second example is linked with the first. For some years we have been witnessing, unhappily, a steady deterioration of standards of navigation in the busy Thames estuary. Inevitably, as the tanker traffic in oil products and dangerous chemicals grows, so the hazards to the riverside communities grow too. On Canvey Island we already have a high concentration of oil wharves, oil storage tanks and a methane plant, and we are to have at least one refinery. Next door, at Coryton and Shellhaven, we have two major oil refineries with their wharves and storage tanks.
I have raised this matter of safety before and do not propose to go into it in detail tonight, save to say that we had a serious warning in July 1970, when a 10,000-ton passenger vessel on its way to Tilbury veered off course, hit an oil jetty at Coryton, fractured fuel lines and caused a great quantity of crude oil to gush into the Thames, setting in motion a terrifying train of events. The oil burst into flames. It snaked around Canvey Island and set light to two barges which broke loose from their moorings, menaced a wharf on Canvey Island and bore down on a tanker unloading hundreds of tons of highly inflammable fuel oil.
But for the splendid exertions of the Essex Fire Brigade and the fact that the wind and the tide favoured the fire fighters, it is almost certain that there would have been a major disaster. Indeed, a spokesman for the Port of London Authority was reported in the Evening Echo as saying:
"We have been very lucky. There has been nothing like this since the war. It went off like a bomb. There was a terrible risk involved with so much fuel around"
I would remind hon. Members that he was talking about a place where 28,000 of my constituents have their homes.
Since then we have had tankers slipping their mooring ropes and going aground, tankers arriving with none of the crew able to speak English and incapable of understanding simple instructions. Yet against that background we have had instances in recent months of tanker captains coming into the estuary and refusing to accept the services of experienced Trinity House pilots when berthing in these crowded waters. By whose
1772
authority are these risks taken? Are the oil companies a law unto themselves?
Qualified pilots have said to me that the byelaws governing the handling of oil tankers are not always closely enforced, that more hazardous chemicals are now being shipped than ever before, and that the risks if anything goes wrong in the estuary could be appalling. I do not wish tonight to name anyone in particular, but I shall provide my hon. Friend with chapter and verse, and I trust that he will look into this disturbing state of affairs without delay.
My third example concerns the growing chaos on our roads in South-East Essex. I do not propose for the moment to discuss the direct impact on our environment of the third London Airport when it opens in 1980. We should have an early opportunity to consider that when we debate the Maplin Development Bill. It is essential, however, that the Government fully grasp the implications that the construction of the airport will have for our road communications in the intervening period between now and 1980.
Our main road system in South-East Essex is inadequate now. It cannot possibly cope with the construction traffic which must soon start to flow. When we had the one-day rail strike recently the A127 was blocked from Southend to London. At every major intersection there was a mile-long queue of vehicles moving at about an average of five miles an hour.
One would have thought that the highest priority would be given to the construction of a new motorway linking Maplin with London. But to our consternation we learnt early last month that it cannot be ready until 1979, one year before the first runway at Maplin will be operational. At least that is what the clerks of my local authorities have been told by the officials in my hon. Friend's Department.
I wrote to my hon. Friend about this matter. On 17th November he assured me that the new motorway would be given "the highest priority", that it would be open to traffic
"as soon as possible and before the opening of the new airport"
and that in the meantime improvements would be carried out on the A127.

1773
I sent a copy of my hon. Friend's letter to the Clerk to the Rayleigh Urban District Council. He replied:
"That sounds all very well but when the surveyor and myself were last up at the Department of the Environment on this matter we were told quite clearly there was no hope at all that the access road etc. would be available before 1979, assuming that the airport opened in 1980. If that is the programme the road apparently will be open say one year before the airport opens, but how does all the construction traffic get to the site in the meantime?"
My hon. Friend's letter did not answer the question.
Let us assume that the new airport starts to operate in 1980. Mr. Black of the PLA was also reported in the Press on 24th November as saying that the new motorway would not be ready before the sea-port is operational in 1978. That can only mean that our existing inadequate roads will not only have to take a great deal of construction traffic to the air and sea ports up to 1978 but will have to take heavy container traffic for the port as well after that. My hon. Friend may well say that the railways can help. I am a great believer in railways. Much more traffic should go on to the railways. But Mr. Black, who keeps popping up in this situation, was reported in the same newspaper as saying that all container traffic from Maplin for destinations within a 100-mile radius will go by road. Whom are we to believe?
If Mr. Black is right, the situation which he described is wholly unacceptable to my constituents. It is unacceptable to the local authorities, in particular to the Essex County Council, which have made strong representations to my hon. Friend's Department on the subject, and it is wholly unacceptable to me. The Government will have to do some fresh thinking about the timing of the airport, the seaport and the necessary access routes. They will have to do their thinking quickly before the situation gets out of hand.
Perhaps my hon. Friend will now see the sense of the proposal I made some time ago that a planning inquiry commission should be set up to investigate all these problems and to make some coordinated recommendations. That proposal was turned down by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State. The onus is therefore on his successor to prove
1774
that his Department knows what it is doing and that a corporate planning approach will be adopted in respect of these problems without further delay.
My right hon. and learned Friend can begin, for example, by calling a halt to the building of any more oil refineries in South-East Essex; in demanding an explanation why risks can be taken with shipping in the estuary and insisting upon proper navigation discipline; in calling for an investigation into how quickly the new motorway can be built; or, if the situation warrants it, postponing the date by which Maplin is to be operational.
Ministers at the Department of the Environment frequently protest that planning decisions, at least in my part of the world, will be taken with the best environmental considerations in mind. I believe they mean it. However, I should like to put their assurances to a simple test.
Improvements to the much-congested A127, one of the two main roads linking South-East Essex to London, are long overdue. At the important Weir Junction at Rayleigh it is proposed to install a flyover and to destroy a large part of the only established woodland in the Rayleigh urban district. I believe there will be some small compensation in land. But if one destroys woodland it will be a number of years before the trees on the compensation land become mature.
The flyover will undoubtedly destroy the peace of mind and happiness of scores of my constituents. Houses run close to the A127 on one side and within 200 yards or so on the other. I have asked my right hon. and learned Friend to consider an underpass which would greatly minimise the nuisance and, to give him credit, he has promised to consider this. But already, in a communication I have received, a line of retreat has been laid down by the statement that an underpass
"would be very much more expensive".
Oddly enough, an underpass is planned for a junction further to the east where fewer residents are involved, and for that reason alone there is a case for an underpass at the Rayleigh Weir.
Let us be clear about this. I am striking a blow tonight not merely for people in South-East Essex but for people anywhere in the kingdom who are threatened by massive developments and

1775
changes of this kind. Safeguarding the environment will be a costly business One cannot do it on the cheap. But since the nation and Parliament have willed that the third London airport is to be built not in the Vale of Aylesbury but in my constituency, the means of mitigating its ill effects on the large numbers of people who live in South-East Essex must be willed too. My constituents have just as much right to be considered in this context as the people who live in the Vale of Aylesbury or those who live around existing inland airports.
I now come to my last example, the proposed new motorway which is to link the Maplin complex with London. I know that my hon. Friend is awaiting at the moment a report from the engineering consultants whom the Government commissioned to study the feasibility of a number of routes. I think they were appointed last February. I know that no decision can be made on this until the consultants have reported and there has been an opportunity for consultation with the local authorities, but this does not prevent a great deal of speculation about where the routes might run and, indeed, some distress to people who may feel that they may be affected.
Yesterday's Daily Telegraph, not for the first time, featured a story on the subject, accompanied by a detailed map showing three possible routes One of these passed through what would be the very heart and lungs of the new airport city, dividing the settled communities of Southend in the east to Canvey, Thundersley, Benfleet and Rayleigh in the west from the new urban development that must come about as a result of the Maplin project. If this idea of punching a major motorway, and perhaps a new rail link, through the heart of what is to be a new city were allowed, it would be the worst kind of planning that one could envisage and I ask my hon. Friend to note that such an idea is totally unacceptable to the people whom I represent.
As Sir Colin Buchanan—I suppose one of the most distinguished traffic planners in the world, and a member of the Roskill Commission—said in his minority report, there is no reason at all why the new motorway should not run well north of any new urban development. I beg my hon. Friend to get this question settled
1776
just about as quickly as possible in order to put an end to speculation in newspapers about where the route may run, with diagrams and maps drawn by people who have not the faintest idea of the geography of the area, its social patterns and the unhappiness being caused by such speculation to large numbers of people.
My purpose tonight has been to issue a warning about our environment in South-East Essex while there is still time to do something about protecting and enhancing it. But time is running out. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will be able to advise me that he is alert to all these related problems and is determined to do something about them, not in piecemeal fashion but with an eye to their total impact upon our community.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: I do not propose to detain the House very long. We are indebted to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) for raising this subject on the Adjournment. He has done it in admirable fashion and indicated the complexity of planning and development in an area which already has a high density of population in certain sectors.
The Minister knows that although I represent a Scottish constituency, some time ago in an Adjournment debate I raised the whole issue of the development of port facilities at Maplin. Tonight I shall confine myself in the main to those aspects of the remarks of the hon. Member for Essex, South-East which relate to port development and refineries and the dangers involved there.
I have consistently argued—and in the not too distant future there will be an opportunity to raise the matter again when we debate the Maplin Development Bill—that there should not be a third London airport at Maplin. I have also argued the dangers of the build-up of port facilities and adjacent industrial development. In his reply to my Adjournment debate the Minister tried to assuage my fears by saying that there would be certain constrictions on the industrial development that was likely to take place adjacent to the port but we know—and as the plans of the Port of London Authority emerge piece by piece we

1777
see this—that there is a gigantic plan based on the airport to build up port facilities and a tanker terminal to satisfy both existing and new oil refineries in the South-East.
The dangers to the public are environmental, but they relate also to ocean traffic. We are talking in terms of 250,000-ton tankers in stage one and 500,000-ton tankers in stage two. I do not wish to go over the "Torrey Canyon" incident again but my recollection of the evidence—I have not had ready access to it recently—is that the captain of that ship, apart from certain difficulties among the officers, made one fatal mistake in that he did not slow down, and because of the tide going against him he was brought on to the rocks.
We have the prospect before us of 500,000 tons in size, the dangers in that the Channel, greatly increasing the dangers of collision in an already congested area. In the next phase, when tankers go up to 500,000 tons in size, the dangers in that congested area will be enormous. Not only are port facilities and refinery facilities in contemplation at Maplin. They are in Rotterdam, too. The two have to be seen together in a European context.
I am appalled that vast refinery expansion is under way or projected in the South-East while we in Scotland cannot get firm plans from BP for the expansion of an existing refinery at Grangemouth so that capacity there may go up from about 10 million tons to about 19 million tons a year, which is what we need to take some, though not all, of the North Sea oil which might be available.
We in Scotland are as concerned about the environment as the hon. Member for Essex, South-East is, but we are able to point already to the presence of deep-water facilities at Hunterston. No dredging there would be needed, but the dredging necessary to give access for a 500,000-ton tanker at Maplin would cost millions of pounds. It can be justified at Maplin only if the airport development is bounced up. That is the justification for it in port terms. In the oil companies' terms, the justification is that they have to be near the market for their refined products.
What about the social cost? The hon. Gentleman gave some indication of it but it has never been quantified. The Under-
1778
Secretary of State speaks for the Department of the Environment. Can he tell us the cost which the community will have to pay so that the oil companies may justify their argument that they must refine their products near the market? What will be the cost in social disruption and danger? These are difficult matters to quantify in terms of cost-benefit. In Scotland, on the other hand, we have facilities open to us. An imaginative project at Hunterston could act as a land energy bridge for Europe and for other markets, and it ought to be considered in relation to the build-up of refining capacity in the South-East.
The Port of London Authority is in difficulty because of the nature of the dock system at present, but the House ought not to let these plans go without searching criticism. I have always doubted—I shall remain utterly sceptical—the need for the development of the third London airport at Maplin, and I should wholeheartedly oppose the buildup of port facilities there. Such facilities will be a danger, potentially a very great danger to the community in the South-East, and they are not necessary unless, of course, the House and the Government accept the oil companies' own analysis of their demands.
I hope, therefore, that when looking at this matter generally the Minister will give searching thought to the points I have raised. I want him to assure the House that the Department will require the oil companies to do some basic cost-benefit analysis on social grounds rather than on the narrow micro-economic grounds which they use to justify their expansion plans.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. George Lawson: The debate is directed to the situation in South-East Essex, but the subject was presented by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) in a way which almost gave a crying invitation to comment from the wider point of view. I do not argue that all the troubles of which the hon. Gentleman spoke should be transferred to Scotland, but I wish to relate what he said to the broader picture.
The Under-Secretary of State is a Minister at the Department of the Environment. The recent adoption of

1779
that title, "Department of the Environment", suggests that from a governmental standpoint we have moved a good way from the position which obtained a few years ago. Until not so very long ago even Governments virtually washed their hands of economics. In my younger days we were told that unemployment was something over which Governments had no possible control. I recall that one learned professor argued that spots on the sun were the direct cause of unemployment. Various other professors had all sorts of arguments in those terms on the economy of the country and how the economies of this country and other countries were completely outwith any powers of governmental influence or control. But those days are past. There is virtually complete acceptance, even by the present Conservative Government, of responsibility for considerable measures of economic control.
I am in line with what the hon. Member for Essex, South-East has so admirably said, that the time has clearly come when our horizons should be lifted beyond mere economics so that we should be thinking in terms of the whole environmental structure within which we live. That includes economics, but it includes a different approach to economics than the one to which we have been accustomed. It means taking proper account of those costs which were previously never taken into account—for example, environmental, pollution and other costs. It is not just pollution; it is the injury we do to the wild life of our country.
I feel very distressed when I hear responsible people say that if it comes to a choice between a flight of wild ducks and some job-producing agency, they would always choose the job-producing agency as if it were the choice between a flight of ducks and a number of jobs. Almost the whole environmental set-up is in danger of being destroyed. The flight of ducks is merely an expression of this. It may be possible for the ducks to continue, but if it is not, so much else is not possible for us in this country. I take it that that is the plea being made tonight, and I endorse it completely.
I shall not go into the same detail as my hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas). He has paid great attention to this. I will make one
1780
point. It is important that we should recognise that the fact of going into Europe alters the importance of different localities of the United Kingdom. When we were thinking in terms of the Commonwealth reaching round the world, with London principally as the centre, many parts were peripheral. In my judgment, for example, Scotland was peripheral. But when one is thinking in terms of Europe, especially the northern industrial areas of Europe and the great rivers coming right into the centre of Europe, one realises that the whole of the North Sea is an inland lake for Europe and the whole of the eastern side of the British Isles bounded by the North Sea, for the whole length of England and Scotland is part of an inland lake. It is all part of what can be seen as the front street in terms of the flow of traffic and ease of coming in and out, because this part of Europe lies right astride Europe's exit and entry to the world, either up the Channel, around the north coast or across from one or other of the various points on the east coast of Scotland or the east coast of England to a concentrated and small area down in the extreme South-East.
We should be thinking of the whole of that coastline and making the best use of it—an organised use and not leaving it haphazardly to groups of industrialists or oil people who usually like to concentrate their energies at Rotterdam. If one comes in, they all want to come in. We want none of that. If we think carefully of how best to locate, we should have a substantial say in deciding where industrialists, oil and others, locate their works. We are thinking in terms of making the best use we can of our country in a whole range of ways and making the proper charge for what is being done or for that which is being despoiled.
I should like to make a special plea for my part of the country, that narrow waist of territory, only 40 miles wide, between Glasgow and Edinburgh, with the Clyde in the west and the Forth in the east offering deep-water shelter to big ships. It is capable of considerable industrial development. Instead of overcrowding and destroying the South-East, we could utilise this area.
I hope that the Minister will say that his Department is aware of the many other possibilities and that some of these

1781
developments cost more than can be shown on balance sheets. It is said that the polluter should pay for his pollution. But pollution can mean more than atmospheric or water pollution—it can mean spoiling the whole environment. We should insist on being paid for any such spoilation. Such destruction should not be permitted unnecessarily. I, too, back the hon. Member for Essex, South-East in his efforts to safeguard that already overcrowded part of what, measured against other nations, is a very small country.
8.47 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I congratulate the hon. Members for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) on managing to hang on to the South-East corner of Essex a number of advertisements for the advantages of Scotland in the location of industry. I admire their tenacity in doing this while waiting for their trains.
But the debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine), who said that it could not be disputed that South-East Essex has been growing more rapidly than most other parts of the country. I hope that he will allow me to say that I do not think that South-East Essex has had a Member more assiduous in protecting its interests and raising them in this House than my hon. Friend. In preparation for this debate, I looked up a number of the Adjournment debates that he has initiated over the years and I found that there are few matters concerning the environment of the people in his area which he has not at one time or another, eloquently and forcefully brought to the attention of the House.
He raised many matters of concern to his constituents with his usual thoroughness and eloquence. My right hon. Friend and I, in our approach to the Maplin project and to all the associated and ancillary developments, are first and foremost conscious of the impact on the environment in South-East Essex, particularly on the constituencies of my hon. Friend and his immediate neighbours.
I agree with my hon. Friend that where change is necessary it must be for the better rather than for the worse. That
1782
is the whole intention of our policy. My hon. Friend referred to the need for a comprehensive approach to all these matters. He stressed the importance of the approach not being of a piecemeal fashion. Once again, I completely agree with him. I can assure my hon. Friend that the structure of the Department of the Environment has been set up to achieve a comprehensive or a corporate approach to the planning that he espouses. For the first time we have within one Department executive control over the whole range of transport, land use planning and other aspects of policy.
The general sponsoriship of the local authorities within the complex, which has been brought together for the first time, means that we have the ability to take a total approach to environmental management and planning. My hon. Friend will recognise that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry set up with the approval of his colleagues in the Government, a directorate within my Department which brings together all the disciplines which are needed to achieve a coporate approach.
We have within my Department the Third London Airport Directorate which is partly staffed from the Department of the Trade and Industry. It is staffed by experts in many aspects of navigation, many other maritime and air aspects. We have from my Department those who are expert in rail matters, land use planning, relations with the local authorities and the management of ports. For the first time they have been brought together within one directorate. We are taking a total approach to this very large project. The directorate is, of course, presiding over the work of the project.
There is also the Progress Review Committee, which I chair, which includes representatives of the major authorities with an interest in the project. That is to say, we have serving on the committee representatives from the Third London Airport Directorate, the British Airports Authority, the Port of London Authority, the Essex County Council, Southend, Civil Aviation Authority and a number of independent experts. At all times we are able to take a total view and to ensure that the many arms of policy are working along the same lines.

1783
I should add that we must not forget the crucial role of the Essex County Council, which is the planning and structure plan authority. I understand that it will be producing a new structure plan which will take into account all the momentous changes arising from Maplin and the associated developments.
I can assure by hon. Friend that the Government are fully alive to the need to tackle the momentous developments as a totality. That is precisely what we are seeking to do. I should also like my hon. Friend to accept from me that it is the enviromental considerations that are uppermost in our minds and the minds of the local authorities.
Perhaps I should refer to some of the comments which the hon. Member for Motherwell made in an eloquent and thoughtful intervention. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that the reason that the Government chose to go to Maplin in the first place was precisely that of the environmental considerations which he put forward. It would have been so easy to secure a large portion of middle England somewhere between London and Birmingham and lay a vast area of concrete, with all the noise and the communications problems of a vast new airport.
Instead, at considerable additional cost in economic terms, we have chosen to go to Maplin so that the majority of the noise and most of the nuisance will be dispersed over the sea and will not affect the people of this country. It was an environmental rather than an economic consideration that led us to choose Maplin.
It should also be recognised that within the site of the proposed airport it would have been less expensive to choose a position for the runways in a more southerly situation. But that inevitably would have meant, though the cost would have been lower, that the noise impact, particularly upon the people of Southend and North Kent, would have been much greater. Again it was the environmental and not the economic consideration that led my right hon. Friend to agree that the site should be site C taking into account the very human and environmental considerations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
1784
The House is fortunate perhaps in having a little more time than is normally available for Adjournment debates. Therefore, it is right for me to give one or two additional facts about the whole environmental aspect which may be of interest to my hon. Friend. For example, he will know that my right hon. Friend has already made available substantial sums for investigation and re-allocation of the bird life in the area. I am happy to be able to say tonight that a 630-acre site at the Leigh Marshes, part of it on Two Tree island, is being offered by the Southend Corporation to the National Environmental Research Council as a nature reserve. This council is undertaking research into methods of conserving wild life in the Maplin area. The Progress Review Committee, which advises the Government on all aspects of the Maplin project, will shortly be enlarged by the addition of a member specifically concerned with environmental matters, and I hope to be able to announce his name early in the New Year.
I must not go into further detail about the Maplin project because there will be an opportunity when we debate the Bill, but I think I must deal briefly with a number of suggestions which have recently received publicity in the Press to the effect that there is no need for the Maplin airport at all, or, if there is a need, it should come later. The need for this airport by about 1980 was fully established by the unanimous recommendation of the Roskill Commission. The Americans invented the word "overkill". We invented the word "Roskill", which means tens of millions of words of testimony in arriving at what is, I think by any measure, a well-researched decision. The Government have accepted that recommendation, and all the forecasts of air traffic still bear it out completely.
Thus the air transport movements in the London area have been growing at about 6 per cent. per year since Roskill started work, and there can be no doubt that more and more difficulties are being encountered and will be encountered in handling the traffic into London, especially at peak periods. There can be no doubt that even if there is a rather lower rate of growth in the future, we shall need this new airport as soon as we can possibly get it, for we must give

1785
some relief to the increasing noise and environmental problems that are being created at existing airports in the London area.
It has also been suggested that the Channel tunnel will be a significant rival to the airport, casting doubts on whether it is necessary. I can only say that if the tunnel were to be built, let us say, by 1980, and if high-speed trains were to run on either side of the Channel carrying passengers to it, and if they captured two-thirds of the traffic on the short-haul routes to Europe, they would still take away from the London airports only the equivalent of one year's growth in traffic. These estimates are not mine. They are estimates of the Roskill Commission, and I think they put into perspective the suggestion that the Channel tunnel can make this very large project unnecessary.
Mr. Douglas: Would the hon. Gentleman explain whether he means one year's growth in short-haul traffic or one year's growth in total traffic?
Mr. Griffiths: One year's growth in the traffic which needs to be handled at that airport. It is a mix which is very difficult to make precisely because of changes among airlines.
There has also been the suggestion made in some parts of the Press that somehow this airport could be avoided if by a severe pricing policy charter flights and the holiday trade were forced out of London to go somewhere else, but I hope that before anyone in this House endorses that suggestion he will ask himself the question, whether in the South-East of England, where some 13 million to 15 million people live, it would be fair or, indeed, even acceptable to the public to force large numbers of people to travel out of the region in which they live in order to go on charter flights for their holidays. I believe that would be creating a ground congestion problem and would be requiring people to go to airports in different parts of the country in a fashion which would be quite unacceptable.
Mr. Lawson: Is this strictly the way to describe it? Is it not the case that people are brought to areas such as this from other parts of the country?
Mr. Griffiths: I am sure that if the hon. Member takes a package tour nowadays he will get on the aircraft in Glasgow or Edinburgh—at an airport more suitable for him. Increasingly, leisure travel operators are offering flights from a variety of places. However, it must surely be wrong to ask the large numbers of people in South-Eastern England to remove themselves from South-Eastern England to go to another airport to obtain package flights.
Mr. Lawson: Surely this is not the argument. The argument is that by this build up one is bringing so many more people to the South-East of England than would otherwise live there.
Mr. Griffiths: I thought that was the point the hon. Member was making. I must tell him that all the evidence is that 80 per cent. of the Maplin passengers, that is, four out of every five, are likely to live in the area or to be visiting the South-East region, including London, and an important point is that very large numbers of foreign visitors who come to this country inevitably come to the London area. So 80 per cent. of the traffic will not be coming from other parts of the country. There will be more who, for one reason or another, are already in the South-East. One must accept that airlines, especially foreign airlines, which we cannot push around, are not likely to serve the very large amount of traffic generated in the South-East region by offering services from other airports in other parts of the country than the South-East. One must come back to the central point that there will be no hope of giving relief to those already living round the existing airports in the South-East region unless we can bring Maplin into operation as soon as possible.
I must come to the points raised by my hon. Friend. I start with the oil refinery. He referred to the permission given in November, 1971 for an oil refinery at Canvey Island. This decision was taken after a public inquiry at which all concerned had a chance to make known their views, and the permission was subject to certain conditions intended, in particular, to safeguard the amenities of the area. I have looked up some of the results of the inquiry. My hon. Friend will recall that at the inquiry the pollution assessor

1787
was satisfied that neither the air nor the water pollution likely to arise from the refinery could justify refusal of the application; that the medical assessor said that there was no reason—no reason at all—to conclude that the increase in ground level concentration of sulphur dioxide likely to result from the refinery would have any harmful effects on the health of the people on Canvey Island or the neighbouring areas; and that the navigational assessor advised that the increase in shipping would not cause congestion on the river, and that it would not materially increase the risk of collision. The navigation assessor, in fairness, also said that whilst there was also the risk of accident, the danger of serious oil pollution would be only marginally greater as a result of the construction of the refinery.
Sir Bernard Braine: With great respect, my hon. Friend is not answering an argument which I put. I did not refer to the oil refinery for which authority has already been given. I am referring to the application for a second oil refinery next door to it. While it may be that danger to health from one, two, three, four or five refineries may be said by many experts not to be as great as perhaps some members of the public fear, that was not the point I made. My point was that a concentration of refineries produces a smell nuisance, but, more important than that, it builds up a concentration of high fire risks, and we already have too many of them.
Mr. Griffiths: I shall come to the points my hon. Friend mentions. But it is important to demonstrate that the report of the public inquiry which recommended—a recommendation to which my right hon. Friend agreed—the establishment of the 1971 refinery was examined with the greatest care. The technical evidence was very sound.
My hon. Friend rightly says that it is not one refinery that matters but the concatenation of a whole series of refineries. All these refineries are subject to inspection by my Department's Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate. The major pollution problem which refineries can create is the emission of sulphur dioxide. I suspect that this is the smell to which my hon. Friend is referring. But the
1788
levels of sulphur dioxide are going down, both nationally and in the Southend area. Indeed, I am advised that there is no indication that Southend is being affected by sulphur dioxide from the existing installations on Thameside.
Now I must pass on to the installations that do not exist on Thamesside. My hon. Friend referred to the build-up of refineries and raised the question of Mr. Black's comments in recent newspaper articles. It is not for me to comment on what may or may not appear in the Press. But lest my hon. Friend be in any doubt, I simply say that Mr. Black is not the planning authority or the authority charged with putting oil refineries in one place or another. The decision as to where refineries shall be is a decision in the end for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and not for Mr. Black or anyone else.
I must put the facts of the present situation, as briefly as I can. First, we have not given any decision on the application for a new refinery at Cliffe. No decision has been made about Cliffe. Secondly, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not been made aware of any proposals for expansion at Shellhaven or on the Isle of Grain. No such proposals have been presented to him. Thirdly, the expansion at Coryton allows for an increase in an annual throughput from 6·6 million tons to 8·3 million tons a year, which is a significant increase, although not a rise of the kind which is beyond the capacity of the environment of the area to handle against the background I have described.
Fourthly, there is a new application by United Refineries Ltd. to build a refinery on Canvey Island next to the Occidental refinery site. A public local inquiry on this application is due to start on 3rd January. I should like to give my hon. Friend at least the assurance that my right hon. Friend will take most fully into account the environmental factors and the views of the local people and of my hon. Friend before reaching any decision upon that application.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has just said. He spoke about an earlier public inquiry but he did not mention that on that occasion all the local authorities concerned were opposed to the Occidental refinery. They

1789
were overruled. I hope that when the second application is the subject of an inquiry the Secretary of State will take note that the local authorities are still opposed and I hope that this time due attention will be paid to the feelings of the local people.
Mr. Griffiths: I have given my hon. Friend that assurance and I hope he will accept it from me. A working party within my Department has just completed an important paper on the selection of sites for oil refineries in this country. It is, I believe, a document of some importance and I shall ensure that the three hon. Members who have spoken in the debate this evening are each provided with a copy. It has just been circulated to the planning authorities.
I turn to what my hon. Friend said about navigation in the Thames. He will appreciate that this is a matter in the first instance for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I can say on his behalf, however, that he realises that this problem is significant. He is in no sense complacent about it and he accepts the need to improve the arrangements for navigation in the Thames Estuary. I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is an important statement by the Secretary of State. To this end discussions have been held recently by the Thames Joint Consultative Committee, the members of which include representatives of all interests concerned with navigation in the estuary. I am advised that agreement has now been reached on a new General Direction for navigation in the Thames. This is good news and I am advised that a Notice to Mariners following on that General Direction will be issued early in the new year.
I understand also that discussions between all the parties concerned about the berthing of tankers are now in progress. My hon. Friend mentioned examples of tanker captains refusing to accept pilots when berthing in these crowded waters. Of course, if it were the case it would be a serious matter. But I am advised that no incidents of tanker captains refusing pilots on entering the river are known to my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East said that he would let us have chapter and verse on this point and if he will do so I will undertake that the matter will be
1790
looked at urgently by the Department of Trade and Industry who are responsible in this sphere.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said and I am sure the House is reassured. I would not have raised this matter unless I had had actual proof in my hand that serious risks were being taken. I have seen letters from two channel pilots which were sent to the Channel Pilots General Purposes Committee. The first referred to an incident in the early hours of 17th October when the services of a pilot were refused. The pilot reported:
"Whatever the reasons for not wishing to have assistance at unberthing operations I feel that unnecessary risks are being taken and that safety margins are being reduced to below an acceptable minimum."
In the second case, the pilot said, his services having been refused,
"Fortunately the unberthing was carried out successfully and the vessel proceeded to sea as planned. The Master … is no doubt a very competent shipmaster and certainly knows his own ship's capabilities, but I detected a certain lack of consideration in his attitude to other shipping which could have been endangered if the operaton had gone wrong, e.g., engine or steering failure with no tugs to rectify the situation. I therefore feel concerned as to the safety of life and property in the vicinity of … jetties if the practice of 'no tugs' is to become a regular practice, especially in the case of loaded ships with dangerous cargoes."
The dangers have therefore been spelled out very clearly. I hope that the instructions will be issued quickly that there will be no argument about them, and that discipline will be enforced in the Thames Estuary.
Mr. Griffiths: I take note of what my hon. Friend said and I repeat that if he will give me chapter and verse on these points I shall look into them at once.
Perhaps I could return to his further point about the impact on his constituency of the communication links to the Maplin site. In this connection he mentioned reports of a meeting in Southend at which the somewhat ubiquitous Mr. John Black was outlining proposals for the seaport. It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for the Port of London officials to outline their ideas for the future in public. I welcome the fact that they are entering into the spirit of public participation in this way. But I must make it crystal clear that Mr. Black and the Port of London Authority, if he is

1791
speaking on their behalf, are talking here only about their own proposals or their own aspirations. It is for them to propose and it is for the Government to dispose.
The Government have accepted in principle the case for a seaport at Maplin. But we are not committed in any way to any particular proposal or to any particular timing. The Port of London Authority knows that perfectly well. The timetable for all the work connected with the Maplin project, site reclamation, the plans of the British Airports Authority, the Civil Aviation Authority and even the Port of London Authority, the organisation, the links all these things remain under the Government's control and not under the control of the Port of London Authority.
Therefore anxieties that the port will somehow be ahead of the communication facilities may well be generated by speeches by officials of one organisation or another. But it is my duty to say on behalf of the Government that the timetable rests with us and the decision whether there will be a port, what kind of a port and when is a matter on which we would first require the advice of the National Ports Council and then under, I believe, Section 9 of the Harbours Act we would have to take into account a lot of other considerations, including the impact on other ports in the area and on the whole regional economic policy of the country.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance, and that his constituents will accept my assurance through him, that whatever may be said by one official or another, the decisions on the timetable and on the port are with the Government and they have not yet been taken. I hope, therefore, that he will disregard much of the scarey headlines that have been engendered by Mr. Black's speech.
I must distinguish between two quite separate problems on communications that appear to be mixed up. One is the motorway, or the combination of motorway and rail link, which has the task of joining London to the new project as it is completed. The second is the problem of the traffic during the construction period, which undoubtedly could place
1792
an additional strain on the existing road structure of Essex.
On the first point, the new motorway and rapid transit corridor, my hon. Friend referred to recent reports on this subject in the Daily Telegraph. The Daily Telegraph is a newspaper that he and I admire. It might be that the newspaper did such a good job in objecting to the airport being sited at Cublington that it feels it must now give a fairer share of space to those who object to having it at Maplin. Whatever the reason, these articles and the alleged routes for the motorway that appeared in the map are sheer speculation.
The feasibility of the various possible routes between London and Maplin is being studied in depth by our consultants. They have not yet completed that work and their recommendations are not yet available to us. They have been told to put environmental considerations high among their priorities, but until we have their report we cannot make any proposal. Once we have the report, we shall put forward proposals as soon as we can. On the one hand, we have to avoid blight and on the other we have to bear in mind the improved arrangements for compensation under the new Land Compensation Bill. We also have a desire, which I know the House will support, that there should be wide public discussion in advance of any official decision.
In the early hours of this morning my hon. Friend, speaking on behalf of my Department, said that the Secretary of State had in mind to impose arrangements for consulting the public about all future motorways and to give an undertaking to publish consultation documents within about a month's time. We shall do all we can to allow full discussion by the public of the routes to Maplin.
I turn to the question of the local routes and the problem of construction traffic before the new motorway is completed. I ask my hon. Friend to tell those of his local authorities which he has consulted that to imagine the motorways need to be completed before the construction is begun is a reductio ad absurdum. To a great extent the construction will be going on long before the question of the motorway can be decided. We must first pick up the missiles from the sands,

1793
begin the job of dredging, build the sea wall and do all the other necessary jobs to get the port and the airport under way. The heavy construction traffic in the early stages of the project will be carried as far as possible by sea—I think largely by sea. That is one of the great advantages of the coastal site.
British Rail have told me that they are hoping to extend the existing Shoeburyness line on to the reclaimed land. That would be helpful not only in dealing with the construction traffic but also as a permanent addition to Maplin's communications. I do not accept the statement, whoever made it, that container traffic travelling less than 100 miles must go by road. It does not necessarily do so from Harwich or Felixstowe and there is no reason to expect that it will do so from Maplin.
We shall do our best to make sure that construction traffic is carried by sea or rail, but there is bound to be some extra loading on the existing roads. We are now giving urgent consideration to what further works may be needed to deal with this increase in traffic without imposing an unbearable strain upon the roads of the area. In so doing we are consulting the local authorities concerned.
We do not expect any major construction traffic problem before 1976, and by that time we expect to have completed the junction improvements, the grade separation, on the A127 and to have improved the east-west route through Southend. In doing so we shall have regard to making preparations for the new town.
My hon. Friend referred to the proposal to build a fly-over at Rayleigh Weir. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries has announced that there will be a public inquiry on this proposal. I am sure that my hon. Friend will attend the inquiry, if he is able to do so, to express his strong feelings in favour of the underpass rather than the fly-over. The inquiry will be held on 18th January and it will provide an opportunity for all the arguments, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend, to be put forward.
I have quite deliberately taken my time this evening in a fashion not normally possible in an Adjournment debate. I think that it has been useful to have a
1794
fairly wide-ranging discussion about the Maplin project, but I only hope that my hon. Friend will accept at the end that we are indeed approaching this whole project in a comprehensive way, looking at it as a total challenge to a Department of the Environment.
I ask the House to accept that, far from wringing our hands and lamenting this very challenging project, we should be relishing the prospect of what is arguably the largest single engineering project ever undertaken in Europe, and certainly one of the greatest projects that this country has ever taken on. By building the new airport at Maplin, we shall relieve millions of people who at present are suffering from noise; we shall avoid obliterating large communities which would have had to be obliterated if this airport had been put anywhere else in the kingdom; we shall be embarking on the construction on the south Essex coast of a new city whose whole environment we must ensure is built to the highest possible standards. In all this, of course, we must have regard to all those who are already living in the area, and I undertake that we shall do our utmost to do so.
Sir Bernard Braine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the assurance that he has just given. But I made no reference to the impact of the third London airport at Maplin. That is a matter for another occasion. What I am concerned about is that, if the best environmental conditions are to obtain as the Maplin project develops, the environment is not ruined in the meantime by allowing piecemeal decisions to be made in regard to oil refineries, of which we already have far too many.
My plea to my hon. Friend tonight is that he should see the whole problem in the round. I have no quarrel with Maplin. I think that it provides great opportunity for our community and the nation. But there are so many other things happening in South-East Essex which may turn the whole development into a nightmare unless the right decisions are taken now. I beg him to see that adding one more oil refinery to the concentration we already have is totally unacceptable to our people. That will

1795
be the test of the good faith of much of what he has said tonight.
Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for underlining that point, which I recog-
1796
nise and which of course I shall bear very much in mind.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Hexachlorophane
  Hexachlorophane
  Young Offenders (Sentences)
  Young Offenders (Sentences)
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Probation Officers and Social Workers (Pay)
  Probation Officers and Social Workers (Pay)
  Police Forces (Strength)
  Police Forces (Strength)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Deportation (Guidance Notes)
  Deportation (Guidance Notes)
  Puppies (Docking)
  Puppies (Docking)
  Privacy (Younger Report)
  Privacy (Younger Report)
  Motorway Speeding (Thames Valley)
  Motorway Speeding (Thames Valley)
  Vagrancy Acts (Prosecutions)
  Vagrancy Acts (Prosecutions)
  Persons Awaiting Trial
  Persons Awaiting Trial
  Immigration Officers (Duties)
  Immigration Officers (Duties)
  Illegal Immigration
  Illegal Immigration
  Animal Breeding Establishments
  Animal Breeding Establishments
  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Football Grounds (Safety)
  Clothing (Flammable Materials)
  Clothing (Flammable Materials)
  Dangerous Substances (Road Transit)
  Dangerous Substances (Road Transit)
  Terrorist Organisations (United Kingdom Activities)
  Terrorist Organisations (United Kingdom Activities)
  Speed Limit Offences
  Speed Limit Offences
  Thames Valley Police
  Thames Valley Police
  Junior Custodial Centres
  Junior Custodial Centres
  Mr. Alan de Lury
  Mr. Alan de Lury
  Motor Vehicle Incident (Wiltshire)
  Motor Vehicle Incident (Wiltshire)
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Police Officers (Subsistence and Expenses)
  Police Officers (Subsistence and Expenses)
  Prisoners (Careers Advice)
  Prisoners (Careers Advice)
  Colonel Moses Ali
  Colonel Moses Ali
  United Kingdom Passport Holders
  United Kingdom Passport Holders
  London Traffic
  London Traffic
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Metropolitan Police (Members' Correspondence)
  Metropolitan Police (Members' Correspondence)
  Road Traffic Offences (London)
  Road Traffic Offences (London)
  Police (Press Information)
  Police (Press Information)
  Trial by Jury
  Trial by Jury
  Fire Precautions Act
  Fire Precautions Act
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Disturbances (Casualties and Damage)
  Disturbances (Casualties and Damage)
  Government Proposals (White Paper)
  Government Proposals (White Paper)
  Transport Users' Committee
  Transport Users' Committee
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve
  Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve
  Green Paper (Distribution)
  Green Paper (Distribution)
WALES
  Rhoose Airport
  Rhoose Airport
  Dee Estuary Scheme
  Dee Estuary Scheme
EMPLOYMENT
  Trainees (Allowances)
  Trainees (Allowances)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  Construction Industry (Training)
  University Graduates
  University Graduates
  School Teachers
  School Teachers
  Safety Officers
  Safety Officers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Steel Prices
  Steel Prices
  Concorde
  Concorde
  Printing Machines
  Printing Machines
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Heathrow (Night Flights)
  Heathrow (Night Flights)
  Copyright (Functional Designs)
  Copyright (Functional Designs)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  House of Commons (Waste Paper Disposal)
  House of Commons (Waste Paper Disposal)
  Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act
  Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING)
  INFLATION
  INFLATION
  LINCOLN
  LINCOLN
  TARIFF REDUCTIONS
  TARIFF REDUCTIONS
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
  OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  STEEL INDUSTRY (WALES)
  STEEL INDUSTRY (WALES)
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  ECONOMIC POLICY
  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION
  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRATION
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TOKYO
  TOKYO
  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  THALIDOMIDE CHILDREN
  LONDON TRAFFIC
  LONDON TRAFFIC
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  REPUBLIC OF IRELAND (PRIME MINISTER)
  PRIME MINISTER OF HOLLAND
  PRIME MINISTER OF HOLLAND
  AUSTRALIA (PRIME MINISTER)
  AUSTRALIA (PRIME MINISTER)
  DUBLIN
  DUBLIN
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Additives (Poultry)
  Food Additives (Poultry)
DEFENCE
  Pay
  Pay
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Small Arms Factories (Security)
  Royal Small Arms Factories (Security)
  Newspaper Advertisement
  Newspaper Advertisement
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  School Places (Cornwall)
  School Places (Cornwall)
  Teacher Supply (Northern Region)
  Teacher Supply (Northern Region)
  School Meals (Lancashire)
  School Meals (Lancashire)
  Grangefield Grammar School, Stockton-on-Tees
  Grangefield Grammar School, Stockton-on-Tees
  Ugandan Asians
  Ugandan Asians
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  11-plus Selection
  11-plus Selection
  Strand Grammar School, Norwood
  Strand Grammar School, Norwood
ENVIRONMENT
  High Riser Bicycles
  High Riser Bicycles
  M5
  M5
  Buses (Injuries to Passengers)
  Buses (Injuries to Passengers)
  Land Sales (Northumberland)
  Land Sales (Northumberland)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Rent Rebates
  Rent Rebates
  Motor Insurance
  Motor Insurance
  Architectural Design
  Architectural Design
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Uganda
  Uganda
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Gilbert and Ellice Islands
  Gilbert and Ellice Islands
  South-East Asians (Entry Permits)
  South-East Asians (Entry Permits)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Overseas Visits
  Overseas Visits
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Borrowing Requirement
  Borrowing Requirement
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Land and Property Sales (Profits)
  Land and Property Sales (Profits)
  Tax Credits
  Tax Credits
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Post Offices (Business Hours)
  Post Offices (Business Hours)
  Television Licence Fee
  Television Licence Fee
SCOTLAND
  Population
  Population
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Departmental Staffs
  Departmental Staffs
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Pension Reductions
  Pension Reductions

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

UGANDA: SECURITY OF COMMONWEALTH NATIONALS
LORD HALE: 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 when and by what means Commonwealth consultation is taking place on the increasing urgent problems of the security of Commonwealth nationals in Uganda.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, we have no plans to raise this question in a Commonwealth forum. As recently as November 20 our Acting High Commissioner was assured by the Ugandan Foreign Minister that the Ugandan Government accepted full responsibility for the protection of the lives and property of all other nationals within their borders.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I am very grateful for that Answer? In pursuing over these past few weeks, in a very difficult situation, a policy which has commanded overwhelming support and understanding, the noble Baroness has received from neighbouring Commonwealth countries forbearance, understanding and cooperation. In view of the news in The Times this morning that further discussions on these important matters are taking place on December 18, I propose, with wholly uncharacteristic restraint, to emulate that forbearance.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his remarks, and will convey them to my right honourable friend.

E.E.C. AND HEAVY VEHICLES ON BRITISH ROADS
3.6 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent the problem of the use on British roads of heavy lorries and articulated vehicles far exceeding in size or weight the present normal limits was discussed at the preliminary negotiations for British entry into the Common Market; what decision was reached; and by whom future final decisions will be made.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the size and weight of lorries was not discussed during the entry negotiations, the Community at that time having no legislation on the subject. Final decisions on the present proposals are for the Council of Ministers.
LORD HALE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether, when the Government won the "battle of the Bill" without the loss of even a semi-colon, they were aware that this would create a locus pœnitentiœ in which we could take no part in decisions, while others could take decisions which would bind us? Could he say whether it was by chance that this extremely important question affecting this country, Eire and Denmark, is tabled for discussion on December 18, and whether proposals for savage increases in the size of these juggernauts are on the agenda? Thirdly, can the noble Lord say whether he has received any assurance that this decision will be postponed until after January 1? If not, is this a subject on which Her Majesty's Government's advisers will say that they are prepared to renegotiate?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I confirm that my right honourable friend will

367
be present at the discussions on December 18 and 19 and he is reasonably hopeful that no final decisions will be taken.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "reasonably hopeful". Is it not a fact that his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has raised this matter'? Did the hope the noble Lord expressed arise from the approach made by the Foreign Secretary?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it was based on that and a number of other factors. We are making our position on this matter abundantly clear.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, can Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the European Commission that if this proposal goes through and we are forced to accept these things on our roads, there are very few roads on which we shall allow them to travel?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that point has certainly been very strongly made already.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us, due to the weight of this locus pœnitentiœ, are worried? If we get dignitaries like Prime Ministers "blowing their tops", what will happen to Mr. Speaker and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor?
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it lies within the powers of Britain, as a member of the Community, to make an independent decision on this matter, regardless of what is the practice on the Continent?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, independent decisions on this matter are not practicable. We could not have two separate codes operating in this country, one applying to our own operators and another to foreign lorries. It would be quite unacceptable.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, when we are full members, will it be possible to exercise a veto in this matter?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the Six are being left in no doubt at all as
368
to how important this issue is to us. We cannot forecast how the situation may change, but there will certainly be a new Commission.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, do the Government agree that if this matter is settled the wrong way before January 1 it will send our membership of the E.E.C. off to the worst possible start and will turn millions of people who would otherwise have been for it, against it?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, all I can do in answer to that question is confirm that we have made our view known that a final decision in advance of entry would be a most deplorable outcome.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the whole question is whether one raises the axle weight from 10 tons to 11 tons, and not regarding the size of the vehicle?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I confirm that the key issue in this matter is the axle weight.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether, since this meeting is on December 19, a Statement will be made to this Parliament before we rise for the Recess?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I will put that point to my right honourable friend.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, if the Government view prevails in Brussels, may we have an assurance that the Government will not rest on their laurels but will go ahead with all despatch on a much more active and vigorous modernisation plan for our existing roads?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I certainly agree that that matter opens up a whole range of very important issues, but it does not arise on this Question.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not true to say that, during the frequent debates we had on the issue of whether or not we should enter the Common Market, it was stated over and over again that if we joined the club we must accept the rules? That was emphasised. What are we complaining about now?
LORD SANDFORD: We are not complaining, my Lords. My original Answer made it clear that on this issue there were no rules.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I fail to understand this because, if we are not complaining, it is very mystifying, since I understand that even the Minister of Transport in the United Kingdom Government has grave doubts about these juggernauts. Is there not a great deal of controversy about this issue? I repeat: when we decided to go into the Common Market with our eyes open did we think about the possibility of trouble about juggernauts or anything else?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, may I impress on the Government the very wise suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Segal? Would it not be very desirable to bear in mind the necessity for our imports and exports to enjoy equal facilities to reach the ports as are enjoyed by other countries? If we are going to increase axle weight, which looks rather probable, would it not be desirable for the Government to be giving consideration to the need for strengthening the roads that will be most involved'? Would not that be a great advantage for our industry?
LORD SANDFORD: I would not agree, my Lords, that it is in the least probable that we shall be increasing axle weight. The whole object of these negotiations is that we should not have to do so. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Segal, the problem of how to deal with heavy lorries in our own country is an enormous and complex issue which I shall be very happy to debate, but not on this occasion.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he did not answer my last point? Assuming that his earnest hopes are not fully gratified, will Her Majesty's Ministers renegotiate?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we are not even near the end of the present negotiations. I cannot answer a hypothetical question about renegotiations.

E.E.C. AND SPAIN
3.16 p.m.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will assure the House that they will never give encouragement to the present Spanish regime that Spain is welcome to join the E.E.C. until there is a democratic Government in that country.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, if and when Spain applies for membership of the E.E.C. this would be for consideration by the Community as a whole.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, may I ask whether she can absolutely assure the House that the Foreign Secretary did not give any encouragement to General Franco during his visit to Spain?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, my right honourable friend certainly made no public statement on the subject, but he said that he hoped it would be possible for Spain to have a successful conclusion to the adaptation of her existing trading agreement with the E.E.C.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, can the Minister say what meaning is to be attached to the words "democratic Government" in the Question? Would they include the Government of a country which either has no elections at all or has elections at which only Communists are allowed to stand?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I think I would interpret this part of the Question by reminding my noble friend that the Paris Summit Communiqué clearly reaffirmed the democratic political basis for the further development of the Community.
LORD MILFORD: My Lords, are the Government aware that at this moment repression is increasing in Spain and that the T.U.C. International Committee are protesting to the Spanish Ambassador

371
over the gaoling of 10 Spanish trade unionists, for whom the prosecutor is demanding a sentence of 167 years? Furthermore, with events of this kind taking place, is the noble Baroness aware that the apprehension of a great section of the British people—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I must intervene, if the noble Lord will permit me. I have more than once reminded noble Lords who are representatives of majority Parties in this country that they should not read their supplementary questions, and I feel therefore, in fairness, that I must put the same point to the noble Lord, Lord Milford.
LORD MILFORD: Furthermore, my Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is great apprehension among a large section of the British people over this question because Her Majesty's Foreign Office is still headed by people who were responsible for helping General Franco in his war against the Spanish democratic Government by the policy of non-intervention?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I could not accept the last comment made by the noble Lord. But I would say that if Spain applied for membership of the Community, unanimity in the Council would be required under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she would say that the present Constitution of Spain is consistent with the Declaration at the Summit Meeting which she has read to this House?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the point is that the Spanish Government have not yet applied for membership of the E.E.C., and I said in answer to a question by my noble friend that of course we stood by the Paris Summit Communiqué on the democratic political basis for the further development of the Community.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, would it not be wise to try to forget objectionable acts in Europe, such
372
as the Spanish civil war, the rape of Hungary and the rave of Czechoslovakia, in the interests of trying to make a better and more friendly Community?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, why should we object to an anti-democratic country being associated with the E.E.C. when we have the Commission of the E.E.C. which is itself anti-democratic?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: I am sure that the noble Lord's point will also be taken into account.

NATIONAL PANEL FOR FILM FESTIVALS
3.21 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what sum is paid annually to the National Panel for Film Festivals for its work on the propagation of British short films abroad; what staff is employed by the Panel; and how often does the Panel meet.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords. Her Majesty's Government provide £6,750 a year for the Secretariat of the National Panel for Film Festivals. The Secretariat has a full-time Secretary and ancillary services provided by the Central Office of Information. The Panel meets in general session twice a year, and for viewing sessions twenty times a year.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer, but I think she will agree that that £6,750 does not reflect the total charge met by Her Majesty's Government. The Central Office of Information has to provide all the other services. Arising from that, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government are giving consideration to this particular form of film festival and promotion, and might it not quite well be undertaken, at even less cost

373
and in a more professional capacity, by other film institutes which could undertake this work for Great Britain?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, arrangements have been agreed upon and are in hand that the Secretariat, which is currently provided by the Central Office of Information, should be taken over by the British Council from April, 1973. That has been arranged for precisely the reason put forward by the noble Lord.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I ask a further Question? Does the noble Baroness think that by simply handing this Secretariat over to the British Council the best opportunity is going to be taken to present in other countries short films on behalf of Britain? May I ask her to have a look at this matter again to see whether she can call in professional advisers in the film industry to have a look at the whole of this subject?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that the British Council will consider this matter, but in actual fact the Panel has been very successful. It selects British short films for 16 major international festivals a year. Films so selected have won 16 major awards this year, so it has done good work.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I do not want to take this matter too far, but is the noble Baroness aware that the last selections were in fact made by one person who serves on the Council? The Panel were not consulted at all. While it may reflect good judgment on the part of that person, it does not reflect any credit on the Panel.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the fact remains that it was a success.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, your Lordships may like to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday, December 21, and resume on Tuesday, January 23, 1973. I think that it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if the House were to meet at 11 o'clock on the morning of Thursday, December 21.

PROTECTION OF AIRCRAFT BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Destroying, damaging or endangering safety of aircraft]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, his view on how subsection (3) of Clause 1 is likely to operate? If I may read that subsection, which is quite a remarkable extension of the criminal law of this country, and indeed of Scotland, it states that any act
"committed in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, whatever the nationality of the person"
becomes an offence under the Act. That means that in any part of the world, so far as I can see, where any aircraft is deliberately rendered incapable of flight, or where any act of violence takes place in the aircraft, that is part of the criminal law and can be pursued in this country. I suppose the Government would have the alternative of either pursuing it in this country or of allowing extradition to take place. I do not know what is in the Government's mind and how they intend to carry this out.
The second question I should like to ask on this matter is: if it is necessary in regard to the particular subject in this Bill, dealing as it does with violence and damage to aircraft, should it not equally apply to hijacking? The Hijacking Act is considerably more restrictive. It deals only with cases of aircraft which are registered in this country and where action is taken by a national of this country, or alternatively, takes place in this country. Can the noble Lord say whether he thinks that there is a case for

375
bringing the act of hijacking under the same very broad principles which appear necessary in this Bill? These two run together and I think they should be viewed as one.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this point. The subsection is perhaps not very clear but, nevertheless, it is there to give effect to the almost essential element of the Montreal Convention; the whole objective being that the offender should have no place of refuge; that wherever the offence is committed and whatever the nationality of the offender he should be capable of being brought to book. That is what those parties who ratify the Convention will be agreeing to mutually. This will apply between the countries which do ratify.
My noble friend is, of course, quite right in that usually when a Statute makes an act an offence, that act is an offence only when it is committed in the United Kingdom or on board a ship or aircraft registered in the United Kingdom, or, in a few cases, where it is committed outside the United Kingdom, by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But it is in order to implement Article 5 of the Convention that it is necessary to go further than this and to ensure that United Kingdom courts also have jurisdiction over offences wherever committed; when the aircraft in question lands in the United Kingdom with the offender still on board; when the aircraft is leased to a lessee who has his principal place of business in the United Kingdom; or when the offender is present in the United Kingdom and is not extradited from it. The last case really subsumes the other two because courts in the United Kingdom do not try persons on indictment in their absence, and so to implement the Convention it is necessary to ensure that United Kingdom courts have jurisdiction over any offender who is present in the United Kingdom. That is the effect of subsection (3).
So far as the Hijacking Act is concerned, I should like to look into that point. The Hijacking Act deals entirely with persons on board an aircraft in flight who unlawfully do this, that or the next thing. Therefore, such a person can be brought to book if he is present in this
376
country, or alternatively, he can be extradited. It is not quite on all fours with the kind of offences that are provided for under this Bill.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I personally should have thought that it was on all fours. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at it. I should have thought that it would not be unreasonable to have exactly the same rules as under this Bill. This type of action is very closely connected with hijacking.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I shall gladly do so, but my noble friend will have observed that it is an offence under subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Hijacking Act, to hijack, whatever the nationality of the hijacker and whatever the State in which the aircraft is registered, and whether the aircraft is in the United Kingdom or elsewhere. The fact remains that so far as the jurisdiction is concerned you have to catch your hijacker.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Other acts endangering or likely to endanger safety of aircraft]:
3.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 38, after ("interfere") insert ("or threaten to interfere").
The noble Earl said: This is a small point. It concerns interference with the operation of property, including, of course, any radio or wireless equipment. What I am suggesting is that there should be an offence of threatening to interfere. This might conceivably take place in the case of the landing of an aircraft or something of that sort. So far as I can see, there is no offence in threatening to interfere. Although in fact such action may not damage the property, it may have serious consequences to the aircraft at certain stages of its operation. I beg to move.
LORD BESWICK: I should like to support the noble Earl in this Amendment, and I only regret that I did not think of putting it down myself. A good deal of the trouble we have had has been due not to interference, in the sense of putting anything on the aircraft, but to telephone calls threatening to do so. Whether this is actual interference or

377
a threat to interfere, I would have thought, is a matter for some discussion. To make the position quite clear, I cannot see why the noble Lord should not accept this Amendment, and I hope he will indicate that he is ready to do so.
LORD TREFGARNE: I would like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk. Like him, I, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, can quite easily envisage a situation quite unlike any of those that we are, regrettably, so familiar with, where an air traffic controller or somebody associated with the operation of the aircraft but not directly concerned with it is threatened, thus seriously jeopardising the aeroplane. I hope the noble Lord will be able to give a sympathetic response to this Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In reply to my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, I should first of all say—and in the course of the proceedings I may have to say it more than once—that the primary purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. Article 5 of that Convention is reflected in Clause 2(4) of this Bill, and requires contracting States to establish jurisdiction over offences referred to in Article 1 of the Convention in circumstances where, under the ordinary rules of international law, a State could not properly assume jurisdiction. Article 1 of the Convention does not include the offence of threatening to interfere with the operation of air navigation facilities, and the United Kingdom would, therefore, be open to criticism from other States if the United Kingdom assumed jurisdiction over such an offence in all the circumstances set out under Clause 2(4) of the Bill.
Since the purpose of the Bill is to give effect to the Montreal Convention, to go beyond that is not so straightforward as it might appear at first sight. Many of the acts which would be covered by my noble friend's Amendment are already offences under our law. I hope, therefore, that with this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: Could my noble friend say in what circumstances such a
378
clause was left out when the Convention was being drafted, because it appears that it might have been a rather peculiar omission?
LORD DERWENT: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that I am not quite clear about this. I quite understand that this Bill is to carry out the terms of the Convention, but I cannot understand why he says that we cannot extend the Bill because it would give offence elsewhere. So long as the Bill covers the Convention I cannot see why it should not go wider.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may first reply to my noble friend Lord Hawke. I can assure him that this was not something overlooked during the discussions on the Convention. The fact is that agreement to include threats was not reached. If I may turn for a moment to the second question I have been asked, here we are really back at the whole notion of what one is trying to do in a Convention of this character, and that is to enter into reciprocal obligations. If we had a unilateral obligation, on the one hand, other countries which have ratified the Convention might object if we were to apply to one of their nationals more stringent penalties, or more stringent provisions of the law, than are included in the Convention. On the other hand, of course, we are also involved in the requirements of extradition for offences of this kind. We could not, on the one hand, get the other signatories to extradite our citizens for offences which were not included in the Convention, and, on the other hand, they would not be entitled to ask for extradition of someone who had committed an offence under our law which was not an offence under theirs. I hope I have explained satisfactorily to my noble friend Lord Derwent the sort of reciprocal obligations we are trying to assume in this Bill.
LORD BESWICK: I may be more dim than noble Lords on the other side, but I confess that so far as I am concerned the explanation has not quite cleared up the doubts I originally had. At first it seemed to me that the noble Lord was saying that what we seek to secure here could be secured under other legislation. He then said it would be wrong to have

379
legislation of this kind because it is not reciprocal. He cannot have it both ways. We are not here legislating for other countries, but for action taken in this country, the United Kingdom. Although I can see that eventually to get reciprocity so far as the Convention is concerned it would be much tidier to have exactly the same Act here as is operative in other countries, I cannot really see why we should not take proper precautions to protect our own property in this country. Even though others may not go quite so far, surely we could extend this provision to that extent without upsetting anyone?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Surely the point here is that in so far as we already have legislation to cover this kind of point, then we have already taken the appropriate steps to protect our own nationals. Perhaps I could put it this way. We are at the Present time not putting into the Bill everything that is in the Convention. This is the other side of the coin. We are not putting everything in the Convention because a lot of these points are already covered by our law. The reverse side of that, of course, is that there are things already covered by our law which we might want to be covered by the law of other countries, but we cannot unilaterally put them into the Convention. But a threat to interfere with the operation of air navigation facilities unless a sum of money were paid would already constitute blackmail as defined in Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968, so that this goes some way to meet the point of the Amendment. Therefore I hope that noble Lords will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: Referring to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk in moving this Amendment and the widespread concern that has been felt and reported in the House with regard to the tardiness of other nations on progress on legislation in this connection, and the fact that my noble friend Lord Selkirk referred to the relationship between this and hijacking, can the Minister make any comment with regard to this and the penalties in this Bill? Are they as severe as those in the Bill which has already passed the Senate of the United States
380
of America, which seems to be more comprehensive and much more fierce in regard to penalties?
LORD TREFGARNE: Before the noble Lord rises to reply, can he say whether we are restricted, as a result of signing the Montreal Convention, to legislating exactly in the terms of that Convention? Were we required under the terms of that Convention not to enact legislation more restricting than that laid down in the Convention? Did that Convention put any restriction on the rights of Parliament to enact what it likes in regard to what all of us consider to be a great menace?
VISCOUNT MONCK: In order to save my noble friend having a double barrel for this reply may I intervene now? The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, said that he might be a bit dimmer than some of us over here, but if he is dim my light has gone out altogether, because as it seems to me—I may have misunderstood my noble friend, and if so I apologise un-reservedly—he said that the burden of the Bill is to bring us into line with the Montreal Convention. He subsequently said that we cannot add anything to the Bill which is not in the Convention, and then he said that there are certain things in the Convention which we have not got in the Bill. Where do we go from there?
LORD DRUMALBYN: There are certain things that we do not need to put into the Bill because they are already covered by our law. For example, there is Article 6 of the Convention which relates to the arrest of offenders, and Article 7, which relates to the submission of offenders to competent authorities for subsequent prosecution. We do not need to put those into our law because they are already there.
With regard to the question put by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, of course in this country we do not in practice ratify a Convention until we have brought our law into line with that Convention. The words "brought our law into line" are important for the reason that I have been explaining; that to some extent they are already in line and therefore we do not need to legislate on that. We can fill the gaps by our legislation, and when we have done that we can then ratify. My noble friend Lord Barnby asked

381
about a Bill passed by the Senate. I think I am right in saying that that particular Bill fell, but the United States penalty for hijacking is a maximum penalty of death and a minimum penalty of 20 years' imprisonment.
LORD BARNBY: Do they then legislate in advance of the Convention?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; the Bill to which my noble friend was referring was, I think, on a rather different subject, more akin to the next round. There is nothing to prevent a country legislating in order to stop something that is wrong at any time; they do not need a Convention for that. What we are trying to do is to get countries to bring in parallel legislation so that the same obligations will be accepted over the whole range of the contracting States and that they will have reciprocal obligations, such as extradition and so forth. This is the object of the legislation but there is nothing to prevent us, or any other country, at any time legislating to prevent an evil of their own, so long as it is limited to their jurisdiction.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, is sitting there very wisely and no doubt he is making up his mind what he proposes to do. For my part, I hope that he decides to press this Amendment because the explanations we have been given have not been very convincing. The noble Lord has now said that the particular point of threatening to interfere could be covered by the law of blackmail. I have no doubt that he is right; but if he is actually saying that there are other pieces of legislation upon the Statute Book that can be used to achieve these ends, I should have thought it would have been perfectly possible to point to something which would give us power to prosecute any person who intentionally destroys or damages any property. Why are we putting in those words if the test is going to be whether there is other legislation? We are apparently putting in those words because we feel very strongly about this problem and we are assembling all the contingencies and providing for them. One of those contingencies is undoubtedly the habit that has grown up of threatening to do damage to an aircraft if it takes off. This is probably one of the most
382
serious of all the threats confronting us, and if the noble Lord is saying that we are not absolutely committed to the strict terms of the Montreal Convention why then cannot we go this much further forward?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I must say to the noble Lord that I do not think he has answered the point. If we fulfill the Montreal Convention, that is fine; but we can also strengthen our laws in this sphere. It does not interfere with the Montreal Convention. I think the noble Lord has frankly acknowledged that this strengthens the Bill and makes it more effective. I think there is no doubt about that. The noble Lord has said that we cannot legislate outside the Montreal Convention for other nationals, but Clause 2 does not apply to other nationals. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (4)(a) he will see that it is covered by the rules in Clause 1(5). Although this is complicated with nationality, by and large this means British citizens. Therefore there are no foreign citizens who would be covered by this at all. It applies to British aircraft, either registered or leased to those who operate in this country, or aircraft in this country. Therefore there is no question of our bringing any action against the nationals of other countries unless, of course, they happen to be in this country, in which case we should be fully entitled to do so.
I do not think that the answer with regard to blackmail will do, because it means that you have to prove two things: you have to prove blackmail and you have to prove threat. That makes it marginally more difficult. I am asking that the simple threat should of itself be an offence, and I think it is right that it should be. If the noble Lord will say that he will look at this point thoroughly, I should like to leave it there. Otherwise I really must ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment. I do not like doing so because we are really agreed on most points, but I think the noble Lord should look at this very carefully again to see whether some of the restrictions he put on are not, frankly, a trifle superficial. I do not think the question of extradition means anything at all. If this element is not in the extradition treaty of another country then obviously it does not apply. What it

383
does is to apply it to this country, and I think everybody in this Committee wants it to. It is quite a small point, so perhaps the noble Lord will look at it again.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I think I am right in saying that this is more complicated and has more ramifications than perhaps my noble friend realises. For that reason, I should be glad to take it away and have a look at it.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thank my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
3.51 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: On that Question, I wonder whether I may call attention to an Amendment down in my name which proposes to insert a new clause. It has been brought to my attention that it is going rather wide if I put into a Bill entitled "Protection of Aircraft Bill" a clause which concerns the protection of ships. I have listened to these arguments very carefully and have been convinced by them, even though I have taken the precaution of putting down other Amendments to extend the Title of the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will be good enough to deal with the point I would have raised had I gone on to move this new clause. Some time ago—rather more than a year ago now—when we were discussing the Hijacking Bill, I called attention to the fact that the same kind of threat that is directed at aircraft is also posed to shipping. As I have already pointed out, there has been one quite dramatic illustration that what I said was correct; there was the case of the Q.E.2. When I raised the matter on that Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that it was hoped that legislation would not be long delayed to deal with shipping. Then, when I raised it again on this Bill and suggested that this Bill really ought to cover shipping, he appeared to be retracting a little the assurance that he gave me on the previous occasion, because he said, on the Second Reading of this Bill, that it would
384
seem that the difficulty that I had referred to was now resolved by the Tokyo Convention Act and the case in the Scottish court which saw a successful prosecution under that Act.
Although the noble Lord has said—and he was kind enough to write to me and fill in rather more detail than he gave me in his speech—that that undoubted difficulty is covered by the finding of the court in Scotland, nevertheless there are other people, including those who advise the Chamber of Shipping, who say that the law is not so precise as he would seem to have me believe. I am suggesting, therefore, that other legislation is necessary. If there is a doubt—and I have said that those qualified to judge these matters say that there is certainly a doubt—as to the relevance of the finding in the Scottish case, then it appears that we are back on the Statutes of 1698 and 1721, and it really is unsuitable in this day and age, when one can either interfere or threaten to interfere with shipping on the high seas by all sorts of remote control, to rely upon Statutes of 1698 and 1721. In any case, I am advised that in 1934 the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council then declared, having had the benefit of studying those two Acts, that they were not themselves able to hazard a definition of "piracy". Therefore there is a requirement here to have things absolutely clear cut.
I do not believe that the noble Lord is saying that there is not a danger or a real problem, and certainly those concerned with shipping—and they are responsible people—believe that there is a problem. I am sure that we should all wish to deal with the problem. I therefore ask the noble Lord to give me an assurance that his Department will again consider this difficulty with the representatives of the Chamber of Shipping, and that he will undertake seriously to consider legislation and, if necessary, to bring something forward.
3.55 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the restraint with which he has spoken on this question. I need hardly say that the Government share the noble Lord's concern for the safety of ships, but, as at present advised, we hold the view that no legislation is necessary and that the law, as it stands,

385
is adequate to deal with a situation of the kind that he has spoken of. The noble Lord may have observed in my letter to him that the last paragraph made it clear that the question whether legislation should be introduced to bring the law up to date and to enact the law relating to piracy in statutory form is still under consideration. I think that that is exactly what he was asking; that we should bring it up to date, remove doubts if there were any, and have it in modern statutory form. I explained to him that the Law Commission are considering this issue as part of their review of the territorial extent of the criminal law with an eye to its codification.
It may help to relieve any anxiety that there may be on this matter if I explain that the situations which this Bill has to deal with are already offences, under one provision or another of the criminal law, so far as ships are concerned. In the first place, acts of violence, such as murder, assault, or malicious damage on board a British ship on the high seas, may be tried in the United Kingdom pursuant to Section 686 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, to which I think the noble Lord referred. Non-violent threats to interfere with the operation of a ship with a view to gain, or intent to cause loss, would already constitute the offence of blackmail set out in Section 21 of the Theft Act 1968. Nor is this all. There remains the wider scope of the crime of piracy under the common law which, in some details, is supplemented by Statute. The crime of piracy covers offences committed by persons on one ship against another ship and also "hijacking", as we now use the term, by persons on board the ship concerned.
I believe that what has given concern to the noble Lord is the Act which I think he himself moved in this House, the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 and, in particular, Section 4 of that Act and the Schedule to it, and it is this which raised doubts in some quarters. I am advised that before the passing of the Tokyo Convention Act there was no question but that a person who hijacked a ship could be prosecuted at common law for the offence of piracy. I explained in my letter that after the passing of the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 some thought that the effect of that provision was to replace the existing common law by a new definition
386
of piracy which limited the offence to illegal acts directed by passengers or crew of one ship against another ship or its passengers or crew, thereby excluding, by implication, such acts committed by passengers or crew against their own ship.
As I pointed out to the noble Lord on the Second Reading of the present Bill, the decision of the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh gave a ruling on this point. The case before the court, Cameron and Others v. H.M. Advocate, supported the view that the 1967 Act had not supplanted the common law. In that case the members of the crew of a British ship had unlawfully deprived the skipper of his command. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, said that he disagreed with a submission made by counsel for the applicants, to the effect that the Tokyo Convention Act 1967, and in particular Section 4 and Article 15 in the Schedule, superseded the existing law of Scotland and redefined it in a restricted way. At the most, he said, these provisions were merely supplementary to the existing municipal law and did not supersede it. It is the view of the Government that acts of the kind described by the noble Lord are already punishable under the existing law. So I hope he will not feel that an opportunity is being lost by our not having made provision in this Bill for something which is really extraneous to it and which the Government, on their present advice, did not consider really necessary. But, as I have said, this matter is still being studied.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord said that something is being considered, which is not quite what I am asking for. He has called attention to the fact that the Law Commissioners are considering the codification of the present law and its geographical extension. The difficulty here is that the present law does not make the sort of reference that I am suggesting is needed in this special particular. Almost all the legislation to which the noble Lord referred—and there is a good deal of it—refers, in its definition of "piracy", to the element of robbery or gain for private ends. One has to prove that there is this element of robbery or gain for private ends, whereas to-day we are seeing something quite different. It is a new problem that we

387
are dealing with here, of people who interfere, or threaten to interfere, with aircraft or with shipping, possibly for political purposes and not for robbery or gain for private ends. I need not refer to some of the recent tragedies which have been caused by those motivated not by private gain but by political purposes. I do not put myself forward as a legal authority in these matters, but I would ask the noble Lord whether he will promise me that the legal people in his Department will undertake to consider seriously, with the legal authorities and advisers of the Chamber of Shipping, to see whether they can come to some agreement as to exactly what is needed.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: May I ask my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn one question? He has said that the law is adequate, but can he assure us that it is adequate in respect of interfering with the land establishments or navigational procedures required for shipping, which could in certain circumstances be very serious? There may be provision for it, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give me that assurance.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Without looking up the authorities on the subject and consulting my advisers, I do not think I should be wise to give my noble friend the assurance for which he has asked, but I assure him that I will consult with them and see what is the answer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be content with the assurance that this whole matter is being looked at, and of course I will see that the additional points which he has made are taken into account. But may I just say, in passing, that the particular case which he has in mind, arising in the case of aircraft, does not as yet seem to have arisen as regards shipping. But I do not say that it is something which ought not to be considered, and I will certainly take account of what he has said.
LORD BESWICK: I am sorry to press this matter, but I have asked the noble Lord twice whether he would give me the assurance that the legal people in his Department will be ready to meet with the advisers of the Chamber of Shipping to discuss this matter. The noble Lord has said that matters are being looked
388
into. Is he evading my question, or is there some reason why I should not get an answer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, there is no reason why the noble Lord should not get an answer, but he knows that I am not the Minister in charge of the Department. May I simply say to him that I will convey what he has said to the Minister concerned?
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Penalties and proceedings]:
4.5 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 1, leave out ("Subject to the next following subsection").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 hang together. I propose to make a few remarks on Amendment No. 3, but shall not speak to Amendment No. 4. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 4 lay down the penalties for contraventions of this Bill. Subsection (2), in particular, reduces the penalty from life imprisonment, which is laid down in subsection (1), to a maximum of ten years' imprisonment for the two offences of giving misleading information to an aircraft, which is dealt with in Clause 2(3), and aiding and abetting, which is dealt with in Clause 3. I submit that this easing of the penalties is inappropriate. I suggest that anybody who deliberately sets out to destroy, or who threatens to destroy, an aircraft can easily do so, if he is ingenious enough, by giving misleading information.
I do not want to go into too much detail, because I shall be putting ideas into people's heads, but I hope that your Lordships will accept—and I am sure that those of your Lordships who have experience in this field, like the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and others, will accept it—that it is really very simple to cause, or almost cause, an accident by arranging, by one means or another, for an aircraft to receive misleading information relating to its position or to weather conditions. Therefore I believe that there are no grounds for easing the penalties which would otherwise apply to the principal offences under this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In the case which the noble Lord has in mind, of offences of intentionally communicating false information—for example, perpetrating a bomb hoax or other similar activities—we are dealing with a rather different category of offence from the offences in Clause 1. Unlike the other offences contained in the Bill, offences under subsection (3) of Clause 2 would not normally be deliberate attempts to damage an aircraft or to endanger life. While such offences might be committed with criminal intentions, such as the extortion of money from airlines, they could also be merely irresponsible rather than criminal. It is for that reason that it seems appropriate to set a penalty for them lower than that for the other offences in the Bill.
There is some analogy here with offences under Section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, which deals with threats to destroy or damage property. Those who perpetrate threats to destroy or damage property are also punishable by ten years' imprisonment; whereas those who perpetrate actual destruction and where there was an intention to endanger life are punishable by life imprisonment. So this is the parallel here with the Criminal Damage Act: the threat to destroy or damage property is punishable by a lesser penalty than where the actual destruction takes place and there was an intention to endanger life. The argument here is that in this kind of case there is not an intention in most cases to endanger life, and the penalty is adjusted to a lower level accordingly.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: May I briefly support the Amendment moved by my noble friend? Like him, I do not want to give examples of how this could be achieved but, unfortunately, we have not yet got to the end of the road on hijacking or the various means which are going to be applied in the months and years ahead. It is sad, but we have not yet reached that stage. I should have thought that my noble friend who has just replied ought to have the powers, even if they are not fully used. I would ask him to anticipate this in view of the various conferences which are coming up, both here and abroad—the International Pilots' Federation and ICAO—and to give
390
himself the powers. I would ask, with great respect, that he has a look at this point again.
LORD BESWICK: I wondered if I misheard the noble Lord. I understood him to say that there would be cases where there was a deliberate intention, and there may be cases where there was a mistake. But, from my reading of subsection (3) of Clause 2, it refers to persons intentionally communicating information which they know to be false.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am trying to draw a distinction between the intention to communicate the information and the intention to endanger life. They are not necessarily connected.
LORD BESWICK: But surely the crime here is the action? If the position is that they intend to endanger the aircraft but are not certain that it is going to endanger life, surely we are trying to draw a distinction which is not real? It is so—I was going to use the word "absurd", but I must not do that: it is such a difficult thing to say that a person can in fact seek intentionally to give false information to endanger an aircraft and yet, the noble Lord says, not intend to endanger life.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD BESWICK: This is the implication of what the noble Lord is saying. I should have thought that the action contemplated in subsection (3) of Clause 2 was so potentially serious that it ought to attract the highest penalty.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The potential danger could be the same, but in the view of the Government there is far less likelihood that the safety of the aircraft in flight would be seriously threatened by this kind of action than would be so in the case of putting explosives on a plane or taking violent action on a plane, as contemplated in subsection (1). It seems to us that it is a different kind of quality of offence, and for that reason we were proposing that it should have a different maximum penalty. This is the view that the Government take: that we always have to try so to harmonise these penalties that comparable penalties across the hoard are imposed for comparable offences. We think, as I have explained, that this offence is similar to

391
that under the Criminal Damage Act which involves the intention rather than that which involves actual results being achieved in those cases where an adverse result is achieved. The obligation of the Government under the Convention is to impose adequate penalties. We think that the penalty in this case, as a deterrent and as a punishment, would be adequate.
LORD HEWLETT: I support what my noble friend Lord Harvey and the mover of this Amendment have said. With respect to the Minister, a ten-year maximum, with the appropriate remission, does not make a very long sentence for what could be a most serious offence. I do not pretend to be a legal luminary or an expert in aircraft matters, but it would seem to me that there is sufficient feeling in your Lordships' Committee to warrant the Minister being kind enough to take the matter back to have one further look at it.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: This is dealing with maximum penalties, and the court always has a discretion to impose a much lower penalty. But is this not an offence which could conceivably result in loss of life; and, if so, should it not have a high maximum penalty?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It seems to me that the intention is really different here. The intention here is likely to be to hold to ransom: it might be a bomb hoax, or something of that kind, with the intention of extracting money. It is a different offence from the reality of placing a bomb on an aircraft and endangering an aircraft in flight in that way. But if it is the wish of the Committee, as it seems to be, that I should take this back and look at it again, of course I shall do so.
LORD TREFGARNE: One of the difficulties is that subsection (1) of Clause 4 simply lays down that, on conviction, the penalty is imprisonment for life; it does not give scope for any lesser penalty. If I were to press this Amendment at this stage, then I should be insisting that the only penalty for an offence under this Act was life imprisonment, and I cannot pretend that that is an appropriate solution. But I do suggest that the maximum penalty of imprisonment for
392
life ought to be available to the courts. Because of the defect which I have myself seen in my Amendment I do not propose to press it, but I hope that the noble Lord and his advisers will be able to produce some other, better solution than mine, and perhaps we can consider this matter again at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Extradition]:
4.18 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
(" ( ) For the purposes of this section no offence or alleged offence under this Act shall be considered a political offence.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 5 of this Bill relates to extradition procedures and brings the offences under the Bill within the compass of the Extradition Act 1870. I believe that there is one enormous loophole in this Bill. As I understand it, anyone who claims that the offence that he has committed under this Bill was committed for political purposes—in other words, he was hoping to obtain political asylum, or some such thing—is exempt from the provisions of the Extradition Act 1870; and if the offender does so claim, we are precluded under that Act from extraditing him to the country of his origin. I should have thought that this loophole was so large and obvious as to have been plugged long before now, but it has not, and that is the purpose of my Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I quite understand my noble friend's feelings about this question. May I say first that it is not a matter of claiming to be a political offender which exempts a person from the risk of extradition; it is that in the view of those who have to judge, the Home Secretary or the courts, the offence is a political offence. Therefore he cannot, simply by saying that he is a political offender, escape from the rigours of the Bill. I should also say to my noble friend (and here I come back to the point at which I started) that this was a matter which was very hotly contested in the Convention itself.

393
The Convention was drafted and agreed and people had started to append their signatures. It would not have been possible to reach agreement on the Convention as the noble Lord's Amendment would have altered it.
LORD TREFGARNE: May I interrupt for a moment? I am not seeking to amend the Convention; I am seeking to amend the legislation that we are enacting, which among other things gives force to the Convention.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend must realise that from their point of view, other countries would be in a much stronger position to demand the extradition of somebody if we were committed to the concept that the fact that an offence was a political offence would not be a reason for refusing extradition—which is what the noble Lord is seeking, as I understand it. Under the Fugitive Offenders Act it is not possible to extradite somebody who has committed a political offence. The only exception to that is the case of genocide. That is the only exception which is ever made in the matter of the extradition of political offenders, and that is because it is considered to be an offence so serious that the discretion of the Home Secretary should not apply merely because the genocide was a political offence.
I am afraid that I could not agree that we should introduce this Amendment, because any qualification of the present political safeguard in extradition would raise extremely difficult problems. All crimes other than genocide, however grave, remain subject to the political safeguard, notwithstanding that they may have caused widespread loss of life or injury to others and notwithstanding that they may have threatened serious danger to the life and limb of innocent persons. That is the position; and it would be wrong to alter it in this Bill. If we were to do so we should not be acting in accordance with the Convention.
LORD TREFGARNE: I am bound to say that I am not very happy about this position. Can the noble Lord give me more satisfaction as to what is going to happen to people who, for example, hijack an aircraft in flight and land in the United Kingdom and who say that they are doing it to get their friends liberated
394
who happen to be in prison in some foreign country, in prison perhaps for what we would regard as something quite unobjectional, like belonging to some political Party unacceptable to a foreign Government? They have still committed the grave offence of hijacking; they have still threatened the safety of the aircraft and all the passengers and crew. If we leave this loophole, surely people who propose to perpetrate these crimes will not be deterred because they will be able to jump through this loophole. It may be they will be justified in claiming that they have political motives, but that does not make the offence of hijacking any less serious. We ought to extradite them just the same.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My noble friend is under some misapprehension about this matter. The fact that they are not extradited will not mean that they are not brought to justice. They will be brought to justice, but in this country. They will not go unpunished; they simply are not extraditable.
LORD TREFGARNE: I accept the point made by the noble Lord, but I do not think it alters the fact that the great deterrent is to extradite these people to the country under whose jurisdiction they would otherwise come. There are obvious examples. I do not want to dwell on them for that is not appropriate. However, I shall be making little further progress by pressing this matter, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Interpretation]:
4.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 7, line 29, leave out from ("when") to ("until") in line 31 and insert ("the last passenger has left the aircraft or").
The noble Earl said: By this Amendment I raise the question whether the definition of "aircraft in flight" is not a little too rigid as the Bill is at present drafted. I know that the wording here is exactly the same as in the Hijacking Bill. I am sure that once the Government have certain wording in mind they will

395
take a great deal of shifting to any other wording. Under the Bill there are two forms of offence. One offence can take place when the aircraft is in service. That starts from the time, I assume, when the engineers first approach it in the hangar until 24 hours after landing. If during that period the aircraft is damaged in any way, Clause 1(1)(a) applies. Within that period there comes a period known as "in flight". It is here defined as the period from "doors shut" to "doors open". Once the doors are opened, Clause 1(1)(b), that is to say, the "act of violence", no longer applies. I am asking the Government whether that is not too narrow a definition, and whether in fact any sort of action could still take place which would probably come within the ambit of the Bill although the aircraft is landed; and whether the situation should be completely changed by virtue of opening the doors of the aircraft.
To a certain extent the case is covered by the words "forced landing". One would certainly call it a forced landing in the recent case, when the aircraft landed in the desert. In that case the crime of violence would still apply until the competent authorities have taken responsibility. The term "forced landing" is a pretty vague one. Forced landings occur in a great many different ways, whether from technical reasons or from one of the passengers acting violently. I would suggest that this danger continues until the passengers are out of the aircraft. If anything takes place, let us say, at Heathrow; if the aircraft had landed, and the doors were open when the act of violence occurred, then that act would not in fact, as I see it, come under this Bill.
I am suggesting to the noble Lord that he should extend this definition. I base this argument on the assumption that the noble Lord will say that this is part of the Montreal Convention and therefore he does not want to alter it. But this is our own Act of Parliament. We are getting bothered by being driven about by Europe; but for goodness' sake! do not let us be driven about indefinitely by Montreal; otherwise we might just as well dissolve this Parliament and go somewhere else. It would be a waste of time. I think the danger con-
396
tinues in any act where threats of violence take place, until the passengers are out of the aircraft. The safeguarding words "forced landing" are too indefinite. It is very difficult to say what is a forced landing and what is not. I should like the noble Lord to look at that point to see whether he can think of something better.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: May I briefly add to what my noble friend Lord Selkirk has said. He is absolutely right in referring to passengers being out of the aircraft. I should like to consider also whether it would be appropriate for the crew to be out of the aircraft as well as the passengers.
LORD TREFGARNE: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Selkirk. I think there is a danger of too wide a definition being given to the expression "forced landing". I agree that my noble friend's suggestion is a good one, but I fear that there may be one or two problems about the wording of his Amendment. For example, it makes no reference either to the crew (which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury) or to the cargo, which might be equally important. There might well be bombs in the cargo. I should also like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, what is the position about acts committed prior to what is here defined as "the commencement of flight". I have in mind contamination of the fuel supply before the fuel is put into the aircraft. Perhaps the noble Lord can say whether that would come under the heading of tampering with the aircraft in flight.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may deal first with the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I should have thought that tampering with the fuel supply would certainly be liable to endanger the aircraft in flight, and I should be very glad to consult my advisers to see that this point is covered. My noble friend Lord Selkirk is quite right in thinking that the subsection he seeks to amend is not only reproduced from the Hijacking Act but also from the Convention itself. The words "forced landing" were not defined in the Hijacking Act, but that is not to say that it is not worth considering whether they should be defined, and I shall ask my advisers to consider whether that should be done.

397
On the main point of the Amendment, here again we are up against exactly the same difficulty. To extend the definition as my noble friend suggests would have the effect of extending the scope of the offences created by the Bill. For example, as drafted, the Bill makes it an offence to damage an aircraft in service so as to be likely to endanger its safety between the time the doors are closed and the time when they are reopened. This Amendment would extend all the effects of offences that could be committed during that time. Perhaps I ought to make clear that if a person who has committed such an offence comes here, he can be tried even though he is a foreigner and committed the offence abroad, and even though the aircraft affected was a foreign aircraft. It is only because the Convention so provides that the United Kingdom can lawfully assume jurisdiction in such circumstances. If the danger occurred after the doors were open but before the passengers had all disembarked, the case would not be covered by the Convention and the State of which the offender was a national could well complain if we tried the offender here for a Convention offence committed abroad.
If an aircraft is destroyed, or damaged, here at any time while on the ground that is already an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. That is the case my noble friend obviously had in mind. An aircraft has landed, the doors have been opened, and while perhaps the passengers are getting out of the aircraft an offence is committed which seriously damages the aircraft and may well cause injury, possibly even death, to the people involved. This, as I understand it, is already an offence under Section 1 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, to which I have been referring, so I think that any gap in the legislation is more apparent than real in this matter. With that assurance, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BESWICK: I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, does not withdraw his Amendment as simply as that, because again the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has not answered the points which have been made. Of course there may be other legislation; whether or not it provides for identical penalties I can-
398
not say, and the noble Lord, who has had more advice than I, has not told us. But we are supposed to be dealing with a certain contingency, a problem or a threat to our normal lives. Here, as the noble Earl has said, that threat does not necessarily end when the doors are closed or when the doors are opened. Indeed there are a number of cases that come to mind where some of the most terrible hours of agony have been suffered after the aircraft has landed—not necessarily a forced landing—and negotiations and threats have gone on and demands have been made that somebody should be released from custody in some other part of the world. This is a situation with which we ought to be able to deal and for the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say that he can think of some Act under which we could get at these people is not good enough.
We ought to have some overall penalty in this Act which deals with this category of offence. I had discussed this with the noble Earl and I think that the formula he has devised is extremely good. But having listened to what has been said, I am wondering whether we could not improve even on his formula of leaving out all words up to:
"the competent authorities take over responsibility for the aircraft and for persons and property on board".
Of course the "competent authorities" could be the airport authorities in this instance. Certainly they take over responsibility for the passengers after the aircraft has landed. The authorities in the case of a forced landing would be other authorities, but they would be competent authorities. The words here may have been thought all right by some draftsmen at an earlier stage, but they are not all right now. Here we are up against what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor called plagiarism on the part of the draftsmen. Parliamentary draftsmen tend to go to previous legislation and take out en bloc what they can find in another Act and use it again, and they think that if that did for one Act it will do for another. That is wrong. We ought to look at each piece of legislation separately and in this case learn from experience, knowing the sort of incidents that have occurred. I think that we could improve on the Bill and I suggest that either we accept the Amendment moved

399
by the noble Earl or at a later stage get even more refined wording to deal with all cases which arise until the passengers are all free from the aircraft.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I readily accept what was said by my noble friend Lord Harvey of Prestbury about including the crew with the passengers. In subsection (1)(b), an act of violence applies during the flight and an act of violence cannot easily be shown against the cargo. So I do not think that it would be proper to include the cargo. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to damage. The crime of damage applies while the aircraft is in service. Certainly it would apply after it has landed and the doors are open; more or less until it gets back into the hangar, or for 24 hours, so the question of damage does not arise. Here we are dealing solely with the question of violence against passengers. I think the noble Lord must look at this point again. It is not good enough to say that other countries would complain. What do your Lordships think the legislation will be in other countries with regard to this? Will they copy us? They will have all sorts of variations in their legislation. Are we going to be confined to what we think is in the Montreal Convention? In any case, the Hijacking Act was written before the Montreal Convention. The noble Lord has admitted that this Amendment strengthens the scope of the Bill. We all want to strengthen the scope of the Bill as far as we can in justice, and I think we ought to insist on this being done. I would rather give my noble friend a chance to look at this again to see whether he can improve the words, and I hope that he will do so. It seems to me to be rather loosely worded at present.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage to say that I do not think it is right to describe the use of these words as plagiarism. I drew attention to the fact that they are the same words as were used in the Hijacking Act, and that that was because they are in the Hague Convention; and the words in the Hague Convention are also in the Montreal Convention. They are presumably put there because those who conferred together thought that this was the
400
best definition they could get of an aircraft in flight. What my noble friend is asking is something quite different. I think we are all agreed that we could not accept this Amendment as it is now, anyway, because it would not go far enough to meet what the noble Lord has in mind. What we are concerned with is to what penalties anybody who commits an offence of violence will be subjected if the period of the aircraft being in flight is over and then the offence is committed. That is the point that the noble Lord wants to get at.
I have already given information on an earlier Amendment about the Criminal Damage Act, and in the extreme case under that Act, where life is endangered there is the same penalty of life imprisonment. If someone were guilty of an offence after the plane was on the ground and the doors had been opened when the flight was over, then whatever his nationality (I think I am right in saying this, but with so many noble and learned Lords here I speak with a good deal of diffidence), he would be committing a crime on a British aircraft and would be subject to British law. I do not see that there is any great difference here. If he committed an offence, he would be amenable to the law; and a very severe law, too.
However, this is the Committee stage of the Bill, and I shall examine carefully what has been said and go into it to see how far we can meet the purpose my noble friend wants to achieve; that is, that a person who not only causes damage, but commits an act of violence after the doors are opened, will be severely punished.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am glad to accept my noble friend's assurance. But if what my noble friend says is correct, why does the second part about a forced landing come in at all? If this is an offence under some other Act, then the moment an aircraft lands the second part of a forced landing is not necessary. It is because that appears to be necessary that I think the wording, as it is at present, is not satisfactory. However, with my noble friend's assurance that he will look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
4.45 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord FERRIER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General provisions as to educational trusts]:
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
(" (6) In the law of charity it shall be a charitable purpose to promote by education mental, moral or social improvement.")
LORD BROCKWAY: During the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated that I should like to have included some definition of "a charitable organisation". In a sense, I am moving this Amendment, I will not say on the invitation of the Minister, but on his indication that if I were able to get it on the Marshalled List he would consider it. The noble Lord was a little doubtful whether I should succeed in tabling an Amendment which would be in order. I have no doubt that this Amendment is in order. I have the highest authority from legal quarters that it is. I submit that in the longer Title the reference to "replacing the powers possessed by the Secretary of State", and later, "enlarging certain other powers" indicates that the Amendment is in order.
The purpose of the Amendment is to define what a charitable organisation shall be in order to gain the privileges which are now allowed to registered charities. I should have much preferred it if we had had a Bill before us which was reviewing and reforming the whole law in relation to charities. The law at pre-
402
sent is utterly obsolete. It dates from a Preamble to a Statute of Queen Elizabeth I, 350 years ago. I accept at once that if we had before us a Bill which was dealing with the whole law, the Amendment which I am moving defining a charitable organisation would be more appropriate. Nevertheless, I submit that in the present situation we should take advantage of this Bill to define a charitable organisation. At the moment, it is open to a judicial decision without any leadership in terms by Parliament. The judicial decisions are complex and confusing, even if one does not say that they are contradictory. I submit to the Committee that it is very desirable that Parliament itself should give a definition of a charitable organisation which is receiving the benefits allowed under the law, so that this confusion may be ended.
We are proceeding under the Act of 1960 which contained four categories of charities which were to receive benefits and advantages regarding gifts and bequests and, much more important, taxation relief. Those four categories were: first, religious organisations; secondly, organisations for the relief of poverty; thirdly, organisations engaged in education; and fourthly, organisations of general public benefit. Those terms are very vague. Their vagueness has led to the difficulties of the present situation.
May I take first the category of charitable organisations based on religion? I accept the fact that the Churches are rendering a very great service indeed in the contributions that they make to dealing with the effects of poverty, the needs of the old and other social injustices. The Churches have been giving that lead not only by the Archbishops, Bishops and Moderators but by the dedicated service of thousands of members of those Church organisations. I should be the last to suggest that the benefits of registered charitable organisations should be denied to them. But when we are looking at this question we have to ask ourselves whether the aid given to registered charitable organisations should be extended to other organisations which are also engaged in these charitable activities but which, under present registration, are denied such benefits. They are denied those benefits because of a contribution

403
which the Churches are making in this field.
The main object of the Churches is not charity; it is to present the Christian religion and the theology of that religion. Even those of us who are Humanists and do not accept the theology of the Churches recognise their absolute right to do that, and we are not complaining. But they are adding to their authority as a charitable organisation the presentation of a theology which is additional to their work for charity, a theology which is not accepted by a large proportion of our community. We now have the additional difficulty in our community of a multiracial society, with sections which accept other religions—perhaps Hindu, Moslem or Sikh. I do not want to limit the right of Churches to be regarded as charitable organisations; but as, in addition to their work for charity, they have the right to advocate a particular philosophy, other organisations engaged in charitable effort should not be declined registration simply because they are advocating a different philosophy.
Secondly, I welcome the fact that Churches to-day are quite definitely, in addition to their charitable work, engaging in political activity. I applaud the way in which they are applying the social ethic of Christianity to racial issues; the way they are standing for the equality of the African population of Rhodesia: the way they are standing against apartheid in South Africa, and the way they are standing for racial equality in this country. We all applaud that. But when we come to look at their right to these privileges as a charitable organisation, Parliament must not deny to others who are engaged in charitable activities the right of those advantages on the grounds that they are engaged in political activity.
I want immediately, as I have done before, to reflect my interests in this matter. I am a member of the Humanist Association and I am raising this matter particularly on the part of the Humanist Trust. The Humanist Trust was first recognised as a charitable organisation. It had all the advantages in respect of any requests or gifts, or taxation relief, which a charitable organisation gains. Then, subsequently, the Department of Education and Science withdrew those rights. I want to recognise that the
404
Department made a very generous apology for having made what they regarded as a mistake in the first place. If the Churches have the right, having regard to their work for charity, to obtain these advantages while they preach a particular philosophy and while they take part in political action, the Humanist Trust, which also is engaged in charitable efforts, should not be denied those rights on the ground that it also has a particular philosophy and also is engaged in political activity for the Humanist proposals that it is now urging.
Incidentally, I never felt that I could associate with agnostic or atheist organisations while their main effort was the negative one of being against the Churches. I associate myself with the Humanists to-day because their main concentration is that those of us who do not believe in supernatural intervention have a special duty to dedicate our lives to human service. Therefore anyone who has watched the development of the Humanist movement sees that it is changing from a negative attitude to one of great constructive personal service by its individual members for the benefit of mankind. I read the actual terms of the Deed of the Humanist Trust:
… the moral and social development of the community, free from theistic or dogmatic beliefs and doctrines."
The Humanist Trust is rejected as a charitable organisation because it is associated with that particular philosophy, while other organisations, in addition to carrying out their charitable activity, are at liberty to hold philosophies and theologies.
My last point in urging this very simple definition of what a charitable organisation should be,
"a charitable purpose to promote by education mental, moral or social improvement"
is this. We have organisations such as Oxfam; War on Want; Shelter; the Child Poverty Group. Those organisations are beginning to realise to-day that it is not enough to give charitable aid to those who are hungry throughout the world, to those who are homeless and to those who are in poverty. They are appreciating that, as a result of their desire to aid those who are in those conditions, they must begin to make certain political demands. Is this House going to say that as soon as they make

405
political demands for the ending of those conditions in the world which they attempt to succour, they shall no longer be regarded as a charitable organisation? I am suggesting in this Amendment that we should lay down a definition of what we regard as a charitable organisation which should receive advantages concerning bequests and gifts, and, more importantly, taxation; and that that definition should apply to any organisation which is making a contribution to our society in efforts to assist those, in our own nation and in the world, who are suffering most from conditions which now apply. I beg to move the Amendment.
5.5 p.m.
LORD PLATT: May I begin with an apology in that I had thought that this matter would come up for discussion at least half an hour before this time and I have, unfortunately, an important engagement which I must attend as soon as I have said my very few words on this subject. If it is a fact that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is in order in moving this particular Amendment to this particular Bill, then I should like to support it very strongly indeed. I myself, as I am sure are the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and nearly every other Member of this House, am a believer in religious toleration. To me, religious toleration means that those who seek to teach ethics and morals, and a better way of life outside the confines of orthodox religion, whatever it may be—Catholic, Church of England, Hindu, Jewish, and so on—should have equal privileges with those who are teaching them within those particular confines. Therefore, I strongly support this Amendment, if it is in order, and I apologise once again for having to leave at this moment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:: I should like to add just a few words in support of this Amendment. The effect of this Amendment is simply to generalise the conception of "charity", and not to tie it to any particular doctrine. I do not want to press the claims of any particular doctrinal section of belief or of any particular organisation. But we must recognise that at the present time social improvement in the widest sense is equivalent to charitable action; and that if this Amendment is accepted then any organisation. whatever its ethical or
406
religious or social basis, which in fact seeks to effect social improvement will have to establish that it is doing just that, and will not have to make any kind of claim on any other ground. On those grounds, I should like strongly to support this Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I also should like to say a word or two in support of this Amendment. I found the decision of the Department completely unintelligible and certainly very upsetting. I cannot see how the activities of the Humanist Association differ very much, except that a theological basis is obviously absent here while it is present in the case of Churches, from many of the charitable activities of the Churches. It is not very long ago that I was opening a Humanist hostel which had been built for the purpose of looking after people in their old age, providing them with accommodation and giving them some assistance. This is of course one of the great problems of the age and it is one which is continuing to grow from year to year. It is the sort of activity which ought to attract, and it is essential that it should attract, the episcopal advantages that are conferred by the law of this country upon charities.
At the time when this money was being collected and this valuable work was being done by friends in the movement, it was thought—and indeed those people who contributed did so on that basis—that it was charitable work and that it would have the same advantages as if a similar building for old people had been opened by the Church of England or one of the other Churches, who took similar steps to alleviate the difficulties to which I have referred. Now we are told that this is not a charity which can attract these advantages. I have been a lawyer for a long time and accustomed to hearing my friends quote the famous remark from Dickens about the law being an ass, and sometimes I have replied jokingly; but when one finds a decision of this kind, and a decision not taken by a court of law but by a Department of State, one begins to wonder whether the Dickens quotation is not in fact true. This situation can and must be put right eventually, and it can be nut right at the present time, because the ruling is that this Amendment is in order. Could we

407
not take this first opportunity of putting the matter right and supporting the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Brockway?
LORD ARCHIBALD: For many years I have been on the committee of a housing society which is concerned with the building of hostels for elderly people. It is a non-denominational society; it is not associated with the Church; it is not associated with any theological or political point of view. It is just an ad hoc society in which people have come together for the purpose of building hostels for elderly people. No question has been raised as to the charitable status of that society. Quite recently I visited one of the hostels built by the Humanist Society near to where I live. I am bound to say, with some sadness, that it is a better building than that which we put up and provides better amenities for the old people, and I cannot see any sense whatever in a ruling which says that the Humanist Society, doing a better job than the society with which I am associated, should not be a charity, while the one with which I am associated is a charity. Surely this is a matter of common sense which ought to be remedied as quickly as possible?
LORD BOOTHBY: I entirely support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I think his Amendment stands on the side of tolerance, and more than anything else, I have always believed in tolerance. I think it is intolerant to ban the Humanist Society from these benefits and therefore I support this Amendment.
LORD BELSTEAD: This Amendment would add a new subsection to Clause 1 of the Bill if it were agreed to by the Committee. Its effect would be to extend the concept of charity by making a charitable purpose the promotion of social improvement as well as the promotion of mental and moral improvement.
If I may draw the attention of the Committee to Clause 1 in its present form, it has two purposes. Subsection (1) deals with the termination of the functions of the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Secretary of State for Wales under the Charities Act 1960, leaving the Charity Commissioners with exclusive jurisdiction under that Act; and
408
in addition the Endowed Schools Acts of 1869 to 1948 are to be repealed because they are obsolete. In subsection (2) there is a very slight extension of the powers of the two Secretaries of State under the Education Acts of 1944 to 1971, to modify for the purposes of those Acts instruments regulating educational trusts.
I think I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because on the Second Reading of the Bill I was certainly in error when I spoke about the scope or ambit of the Bill in any sense relating to the procedures of your Lordships' House. The sense which I feel I should have tried to convey is that the clause in which this Amendment would come is really not concerned with the substance of the law of charity, whether educational or otherwise. There is, moreover, no provision in the Bill dealing with the substance of the law of charity. I realise, though I am not a lawyer, that the legal concept of charity is a difficult problem, raising wide issues and causing concern, quite obviously as this debate has shown, to many noble Lords. It was considered in depth by the Nathan Committee on the Law of Charitable Trusts which reported in 1952. That Committee, although recommending a statutory definition of charity, reported:
"We accept the view that there is no case for an alteration of the content of the law of charity"
and concluded that the statutory definition they recommended
"should leave untouched the existing case law".
I confess I was a little surprised that some noble Lords who have spoken—and I realise their concern on this subject—have not at least alluded to those conclusions which came from the Nathan Committee. The subject was debated in both Houses of Parliament when the Bill which became the Charities Act 1960 was being considered, and Parliament endorsed the conclusion of the Nathan Committee that the content of the law of charity should be left unaltered. The matter was debated again, very fully indeed, on a Motion for Papers by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on June 29, 1971, and on that occasion the views of the present Government were put forward by my noble friend Lord Windlesham, and also by myself. In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway,

409
tabled an Unstarred Question on the case of the Humanist Association on February 25, 1971.
I submit to the Committee that this Bill does not obviously—at least not obviously to me—present the occasion to debate the matter again. The Amendment really has very little to do with the clause to which it would be added, and very little to do with the Bill in which that clause is included. If I may try to substantiate what I have just said, as I understand it the question of whether education is to be regarded as charitable is determined by principles laid down in decisions of the courts, and of course there is an appeal on a decision which goes to the High Court. In the circumstances, I find it hard on this Bill to accept an Amendment altering the substance of the law of charity, but perhaps your Lordships would allow me to observe in passing that the promotion of mental and moral improvement which comes into this Amendment, whether by education or otherwise, is already regarded by the law as a charitable purpose. But the promotion of a social improvement is a concept capable, I think it is fair to say, of several meanings, perhaps not all of them readily acceptable as beneficial in the context of the law of charity.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: The noble Lord will forgive me if I venture to point out that the question of moral improvement is also of somewhat ambiguous meaning.
LORD BELSTEAD: Indeed, but it is something with which over the years the courts have found they are able to deal. As I understand it, the noble Baroness is suggesting an entirely new concept, that we should not look to the courts for the judgment but that we should lay down by Statute a ruling from Parliament.
May I conclude by saying that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said at the end of the Second Reading of this Bill that he would like to see the law on charities more clearly defined. It was at that moment that I ventured to suggest that it might not have a close association with the Bill, and for that I have apologised. But I am in a difficulty here. This Amendment does not in fact define the law of charity. It does not define it either clearly or otherwise. It alters the
410
substance of it and it does so, I would submit, in one respect most obscurely. The noble Lord is asking a Government Department to give a view on the interpretation of "charity" or "charitable purposes", a subject which Parliament has consistently refused to interpret hitherto, except of course in Sections 45 and 46 of the Charities Act.
LORD CHORLEY: May I say that that is what the noble Lord's Department has done in this case? We are just trying to get it put right.
LORD BELSTEAD: No, we have interpreted the law as we found it, and from our interpretation there is an appeal, as the noble Lord very well knows. In addition, as I have said, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would introduce a concept of charitable purposes which could be interpreted in a variety of different ways. In these circumstances we may disagree between the two sides of the House, but what is certain is that the noble Lord has set me a difficult task. I hope that at least I have carried out one half of my undertaking, and that was to give the noble Lord a full reply. I am only sorry that at the moment, particularly in this Bill, it is not possible to give the noble Lord the satisfaction he is seeking.
5.22 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I initiated the debate on this particular subject some little time ago, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has mentioned, and we had a fairly full discussion of this point. In substance, I certainly support the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I believe that the time has come for a change in the law. It was not apparent that the time for change had come when the Nathan Committee reported. Things have moved very fast in the charitable field since then and there is a considerable case for a change. I did not think that some of the arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, put forward really held water. The original statement of what charitable aims are stems from Statute and, as he said quite rightly, the courts over a period of time have been able to interpret sensibly, or sometimes not so sensibly, very difficult concepts, such as that of moral improvement. There is absolutely no

411
reason why they should not also, over a period of time, be able to interpret sensibly or not so sensibly, social improvement. I see no real difficulty in giving them that particular task.
There are two small points mixed up here: there is the point about the discrimination which seems to attach to Humanists or non-religious bodies as such; and there is the wider point about political action. I am myself in favour of a change in the law on both these matters and this appears to be a very good Amendment. May I urge some noble Lords who have spoken not to over-egg the pudding of their argument on this issue? The objection to the Humanist Trust as a charity has nothing to do with hostel keeping; it is because of the educational clauses in its main objects. If the Humanist Trust were to set up a charity merely for running hostels or the alleviation of the poor, it would undoubtedly have to be accepted by the Charity Commissioners. The Humanists are not being discriminated against in this particular way, although they are being discriminated against in other ways. I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in the position in which he finds himself, because I see that an Amendment to this very small Bill dealing with nuts and bolts is possibly not the right way to change the definition of the law at the moment. After the full discussion here and perhaps some more enlightenment about what the substantial arguments of the Government are—and we have not had a very full answer about that—I wonder whether the best advance would not be that this would be a good subject for a simple, one-clause Bill, introduced possibly by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
5.25 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: I should like to say that it has been quite evident from this debate, from all sides of the House, that there is a deep concern about this issue and the registration of charitable organisations should not be determined by the particular philosophy which they hold. The plea for tolerance has come from all sides and I appreciate that immensely. I hope that it will not just be frozen at the end of this debate. The second thing that I should like to say is
412
this: I recognise at once that this is not the most appropriate Bill upon which this issue could be raised. I have raised it, and I think with some effect, because it was the only occasion on which this important issue could be put to the Committee. I am very grateful for the extraordinary width of support that I have had for this Amendment.
I have now to decide whether or not I press the Amendment. That will depend upon what the Minister says in reply to what I am now going to ask him. It will have been very evident to him from the debate this afternoon that there is a general opinion in this House that this matter has to be reconsidered. The only effective argument which he could urge against my Amendment was that this was not the suitable Bill for it. I therefore ask him this question. If this is not the suitable Bill for this Amendment, will Her Majesty's Government, as soon as the timetable of their legislation allows, consider carefully the introduction of a Bill which will consider the whole basis which is now so unsatisfactory, of our definition of charitable organisations? Will they even consider the appointment of a Select Committee or other means by which this issue could be considered? I would say to the Minister that after this remarkable debate to-day, in which overwhelming expression of opinion has been exerted, those of us who are in favour of this Amendment do not want to allow it to be brushed aside. If the Minister can give me any assurance at all that this matter wig not be allowed to die but that consideration by some committee and by his Department will be directed to it, and that at some point (it may even be by facilities for a Private Member's Bill) this issue will be regarded as one of importance with which Parliament should deal, I should be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. If he cannot give me those assurances, then I shall have to ask the Committee to divide.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: May I support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in this plea. In the Charities Act we learn that "charitable purposes" mean,
"purposes which are exclusively charitable according to the law of England and Wales."
Since that seems such an ambiguous statement. I should think that the Minister has very wide opportunities to clarify

413
the matter, even if it means bringing forward a small Bill. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. We need clarification.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: May I intervene, with an apology to the Committee because I did not hear the whole of this debate, and, therefore, I am unable personally to judge whether there really was such widespread support for the philosophy which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has been enunciating. I am bound to say that in the absence of the evidence of my own senses, which would have resulted from my being here, I should be very much inclined to doubt whether a set debate on this wide subject could have produced the result which Lord Brockway assures us it seems to him to have produced. I wonder whether one could ask Lord Brockway not to hold a pistol at the Minister's head—in effect, "We will divide the Committee unless you promise to do something about this". It is a very wide subject which ought to be promulgated and widely dealt with and discussed before Governments say that they are going to deal with it. Whether there is a case for a new Nathan Committee I would very much doubt. Not so long ago it covered the field very widely. We have had the debates initiated by the Liberal Peer, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and by others, all within the last year or two. I would doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, does himself justice in saying "I will divide unless". I ask him to think again.
LORD BROCKWAY: May I say in reply to the noble Lord that I am not holding a pistol. All I am after is that the Government should give some opportunity for discussion of this issue, with a view, after that discussion has taken place, to bringing proposals before Parliament.
LORD BELSTEAD: If I may reply to the debate once more, we are, it seems to me, discussing an absolutely basic amendment to the Charities Act 1960. I will certainly accede to the requests of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to this extent; I will promise to draw this debate to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and I will certainly get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, to tell
414
him that I have done this. I am wondering whether perhaps I had better draw the attention of the Shadow Home Secretary, Mrs. Shirley Williams, to this debate as well. She may be a little startled to see what has been said on behalf of her Party, with the attention that has been given to this matter since 1960.
The noble Lord also asked specifically that this matter should not be allowed to die. I do not know that I am really competent to pronounce about the moment of death, but I must say that I do not think I can give an absolute assurance this evening about resuscitation. There is, however, absolutely nothing to stop discussion in either House of Parliament, provided it can be arranged through the usual channels. Further than that—with an assurance that I will get in touch with the Home Secretary personally on this point—I cannot go.
LORD BROCKWAY: As a result of that reply, I am prepared to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment. As I understand it, the attention of the Minister will be drawn to this matter; there will be some communication, not merely with me. I can distribute it, and then possibly I can find an opportunity in this House to raise the matter again. Tit those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BRECON: I should like to ask my noble friend a question. Under this Bill, what is the position of an endowed school which was founded by gifts of money to provide teaching of grammar, Latin and so on (I think those were the words he used at Second Reading) and is now a direct grant school? Will this type of school cease to be answerable to the Ministry of Education under the new Act?
LORD BELSTEAD: I think the answer to my noble friend's question is that the school will be dealt with in the exercise of charity jurisdiction by the Commissioners under this Act. As the law now stands, my right honourable friend's Department would deal with it under the

415
Charities Act; and, of course, it is precisely this power that is being transferred under Clause 1(1)(a). The Department could act, however, under Clause 1(2)(c) if the trusts of any particular school which the noble Lord has in mind are required to be modified to enable the governors to comply with the requirements of direct grant schools legislation. But in fact I am advised that in practice this would be unlikely.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

NORTHERN IRELAND (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NORTHERN IRELAND (BORDER POLL) BILL
5.38 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Holding of border poll in Northern Ireland]:
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert ("and the result of the poll shall be announced for each constituency as though such an election were being held.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. I believe it can be inferred from the Bill as it stands at present that the result of this poll will be returned for the entire Province. I infer this from the fact that the word "poll" is used in relation to it in the
416
singular, while the word "polls", in the plural, is used when referring to General Elections to Parliament. But in any case the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on Second Reading, indicated that it was the intention that there should only be one figure returned for the whole Six Counties. My Amendment would mean that, instead, the votes would be counted in each of the constituencies which, between them, used to return fifty-two members to Stormont, so that it would be possible to have an idea how sympathies are distributed on the two sides throughout the Six Counties.
In another place an Amendment was put down in quite different language. My language may be faulty—I cannot speak to that—but when the Amendment was debated in the other place it was refused by the Minister largely on the grounds that it was implicit in the Amendment that there would be a move in those areas in which a nationalist majority existed, for those areas immediately, or in the near future, to be handed over to the Republic. As my honourable friends said in another place, but I wish to repeat here, that is absolutely no part of this proposal. It has never been suggested by anyone who favours the abolition of Partition that this should be done piecemeal, and that at any time certain parts of the Six Counties should be joined with the Republic leaving the remainder in Northern Ireland.
I do not think that it takes very much understanding of the situation to accept that that must be the case, because if there were such a change, and if most of Fermanagh and Tyrone, and parts of all the other counties except Antrim could, by some strange jigsaw puzzle technique, be united with the Republic, one would be left with a very small three or four county Province, or part Province, which would have virtually a 90 per cent. or 95 per cent. Unionist or loyalist content. That, of course, is the last thing that we would desire, because it would mean that if it remained a viable State, and could continue in existence at all, it would always remain loyalist, and the never-ending hope of a 32-county Republic would come to an end. Therefore, there is no suggestion at all contained in this Amendment that if, for instance, in Fermanagh there was found to be, as I believe there would be, a

417
strong majority in favour of unification any pressure would be brought to bear for that single county, or other areas, to be joined with the Republic of Ireland.
The case was well argued in another place, and there are just two points I want to make here. First, I feel that it would be a matter of immense interest to everyone concerned to know how these loyalties lie in the Six Counties; where they are located, and in what areas the sympathies for the two sides are strongest. A large sum of money is to be expended in collecting information which is absolutely useless. I can tell your Lordships at this moment more or less what the result will he. If this extra work were done, it would cost very little more, and it would give us a most interesting picture of the composition of society in the Six Counties.
That is not the only point. What is more important is that the minority would be encouraged to come out and vote. This would discourage the boycott that is extremely likely at present, and which all Parties at Westminster have agreed should, if possible, be avoided. It stands to reason that if you were a Catholic or, I prefer to say, a Nationalist living, in a county—
A NOBLE LORD: A Catholic?
LORD KILBRACKEN: If you were a Catholic, or a Nationalist, or a Republican, or an anti-Unionist—I will use whatever terminology is most suitable to the noble Lord—as things are at present you would say, "What is the point of coming out to vote to-day; I am going to be one figure in a minority in the entire Province. I will boycott it. "But if it were done on a constituency basis, as I am proposing, the position would be different, because at once the minority would say, "Come on, boys, let us go out and show them here in Fermanagh that we are in a majority". The same applies in Tyrone, or wherever it might be. Therefore, you would get a better turn-out, and you would have less opposition from the minority. In any event, what has been described as a farcical and, I believe, useless procedure would at least give us some information that we should like to have. I beg to move.
5.46 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: The Amendment moved by my noble friend is no concern of mine. My concern is with the principle embodied in the first clause of the Bill. Hitherto, I have refrained from intervening in any of the debates associated with the Ulster problem, but not because I am unacquainted with the history of revolt and oppression, and the various allegations and counter allegations associated with the Irish problem. I was in fact brought up in Glasgow among members of the Orange Order and members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians. At the age of 15 I had to listen in my father's workshop—I do not want to indulge in an autobiography, but I simply recall it for the purposes of illustration—when they were discussing whether England (and it was England at the time; there was no reference made to Britain) should have gone to war against the Boers, and of course the Irish problem was under review. I recall the controversy, the passion, and the heat engendered in the course of those discussions.
I have had further association with Ireland in the South and in the North. I was acquainted with many of the rebels before the First World War: the famous Jim Connolly, the not-less-famous Jim Larkin, Will O'Brien, Cathal O'Shannon, and Dick Corrish, and all the rest. I knew them all. I was similarly acquainted with many members of the Orange Order in the North. I was associated with the sea, and I had to visit the various ports of Ireland, and I was therefore able to make their acquaintance, so I know something about the problem.
The other day we had a debate on the general history of the problem, and here I should like to interpose one observation, which I think one ought to indulge in, and that is to express our regret that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, should be placed in this extremely difficult situation. From time to time Ministers are pitch-forked into a situation not of their own making. In this particular instance, one can understand the nature of the responsibility that is imposed upon the noble Lord, and I must say that his is an unenviable task. Whatever may be the outcome, one wishes him well personally and in the interests of Ulster and Ireland,

419
and the United Kingdom. I think that ought to be said. It has been said by others, and I have ventured to say it in the past, and I do so now.
When I listened to the debate the other day, I waited for some Member of your Lordships' House to propound a solution to this problem. Your Lordships will forgive me for expressing myself in this fashion. I do not mean any offence. But we Members of your Lordships' House went "round and round the mulberry bush". There were emotional and illogical speeches, but nothing realistic, and no solution was propounded for the obvious reason that there can be only one logical solution; that is, at some time or other, the reunification of the whole country. But having said that, may I say that I recognise all the difficulties associated even with an approach to that solution. Anyhow, why argue about it at this stage when it is obviously unacceptable?
But when the Government decide to have a referendum, in the course of which they ask people in the Six Counties to express an opinion as to whether they want to retain their association with the United Kingdom or to associate themselves with a United Ireland—which means association with the Republic—it is a different story altogether. Why is it necessary? I look at the Schedule and I am staggered by the language that is embodied in it. The electors (and of course there will be electors, because this is a kind of General Election; a referendum is not unlike an Election) will be asked, first of all, the question: "Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?" I ask Members of your Lordships' House: what are the majority likely to say in reply to that question? Obviously, they will reply in the affirmative. It would be completely unrealistic to think that they will say otherwise. We know it to be a foregone conclusion that they will reply in the affirmative. If that question had been supplemented by some reference to ensuring that the rights and privileges which are available to the majority should also be vested in the minority; that there should be no discrimination whatever as regards employment, the provision of housing or the effects of local authority administration, then I could have under-
420
stood it. It might also be more acceptable to those who are asked to record their vote.
On the other hand, we have the second question: "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?" If that question had been supplemented by the words "at any time in the future", not with any intention, if it proved acceptable, that it should be immediately imposed, but with the intention that it should be a subject for discussion, for negotiation, for a rational approach to a solution of the problem, I could have understood it. One might as well have posed the question in this fashion: Do you believe that two and two makes four? It is obvious what the answer will be. We know what the majority will say, and we have a fair idea of what the minority will say. No doubt some of the Catholic minority who, in the circumstances of the terrorism, the murders which have been perpetrated, and all the horrors associated with the Ulster problem over the last few years—apart from the historic features of the problem with which most Members of your Lordships' House are familiar—may be inclined to say, "Yes, let us be associated with the United Kingdom". I have not the least doubt that that might happen. There might even be a few of the majority who might say that, in the long run—not in the foreseeable future—they could be associated with the Republic of Ireland. They might say that there could be reunification, provided that the circumstances were propitious and that there was no discrimination whatever. They might feel that they should all live together, and I could understand that. But are these questions—I put it very simply—really necessary?
I think I am justified in asking this further question. At the end of the day, what will happen? Let me furnish an illustration. Let me take the second question: "Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?" I would ask the noble Lord, who will no doubt reply, to suppose that in reply to that question there is an affirmative answer. Let us suppose that, as a result of the plebiscite, a majority indicated their desire to be associated with the Republic. Are we to understand that

421
the United Kingdom Government would immediately, or in the foreseeable future, take steps in order to implement that decision?
LORD KILBRACKEN: Yes.
LORD SHINWELL: My noble friend thinks that they would. But I have grave doubts about it, knowing some of the political history associated with this problem. In any event, in my opinion, it is most unlikely to happen. Therefore, once the plebiscite has been undertaken and a decision given, what will the Government do? It appears to me land the noble Lord may correct my impression if I am mistaken in this view) that if the decision is, as I expect it will be, in favour of continued association with the United Kingdom, it will emphasise the determination and resolution of those who are called the Loyalists in Ulster to hang on like grim death and never give way. It will rather harden their resolve not to give way on any account. Therefore it seems to me that this is a mistaken line of policy and one that should never have been undertaken. I do not suppose that the Government will respond favourably to the point of view that I am venturing to put to your Lordships, but that is how I regard the matter and I take a very realistic view of the whole situation.
I want to add one further point, in case there is any misunderstanding. I have no feeling of sympathy or compassion for those who have been responsible for the horrors which have been committed—none whatever. In my view, the bestiality has been horrific. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken said the other day that he thought it might lead to reunification, but I do not know. It sometimes happens that violence makes a contribution to progress, but I am not sure that it will happen on this occasion. But I ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, first: was it really necessary to embark upon this undertaking; and, second, having decided to embark upon it, what is to happen at the end of the day? I should like the noble Lord to furnish me with an answer which will clarify my mind, and the minds of other Members of your Lordships' House who are finding it very difficult indeed to understand whether this journey was necessary.
LORD SHACKLETON: I think we should debate the Amendment, because I regard it as a serious one. I explained my views at great length the other day and I hope that we shall take this Amendment seriously. My dislike of the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill is such that I do not really see very much point in tampering with it at all, but there are certain obvious advantages in what is proposed in my noble friend's Amendment. We particularly pointed out the limitations of this particular set of questions, and we shall come on to that later. But it is arguable that something, if not exactly my noble friend's Amendment then something like it, might reveal some useful information. Where I have doubts—and I would say this to my noble friend—is that I am not sure whether taking the constituencies is not too blunt an instrument. My noble friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I take it that he means the Parliamentary constituencies.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The Stormont Parliamentary constituencies.
LORD SHACKLETON: I take it that they are smaller. Could my noble friend tell me the size of the electorate in each of the typical Stormont constituencies?
LORD KILBRACKEN: Not without notice.
LORD SHACKLETON: Well, there it is; we are in a slight difficulty. But I can see an advantage if the areas are reasonably small. Taking the Parliamentary Elections, if my recollection is right each county, so to speak, elects two Members, and these areas are very large indeed. There would be advantage in relation to the point which my noble friend Lord Beswick made; namely, that if there were to be small boundary changes necessary this might provide some useful indication. I happen to be rather against tampering with the Border. I am inclined to think that it is all or nothing at this moment. But this could come later; there could be such adjustments. And I think my noble friend's argument that this might mean more people taking part in the poll is of some interest. But as I said when we debated the whole principle of this Bill, I suspect that the Government are really anxious to get—I was going to say "the damn thing

423
over". They realise it is very embarrassing, but they are committed. We know that they will not achieve anything other than to irritate and upset a large number of people, which may lead to violence; and, of course, we know what the result will be at the end of the day. It may be that my noble friend Lord Kilbracken can even give precise figures.
But having said all that, once again I say that I appreciate the Government are committed on this; and, therefore, attractive though in some ways I find my noble friend's Amendment, I suspect that at this late hour there is not very much more we can do about it. It may well be that when we come to the later Amendments, or the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part?, we shall be able to press the points made particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and others, that the Government should publish their proposals as soon as possible. But I am very conscious that we shall be coming on to the Detention of Terrorists Order, which is a very important Order, and I observe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who really will be able to give us some help on this, and therefore I do not think I will say any more at this moment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: May I give my noble Leader the information which I said I was unable to give him without notice? He will gather it from pages 90 and 91 of the Green Paper. There is a proposal for 75 constituencies, each having about 13,000 electors; so if there were 50 constituencies—
LORD SHACKLETON: Are these the proposals by the Northern Ireland Labour Party or by the Ulster Liberal Party? At any rate, I take my noble friend's point, and I am grateful to him.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am in the hands of the Committee entirely. As the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, we have still to come the debate on the Detention of Terrorists Order, which has not been debated by either House of Parliament and which is a matter of very considerable importance, and I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble and
424
learned Lord, Lord Diplock, are hoping to speak on that Order. It would therefore seem to me that perhaps I should not engage in a protracted debate with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has raised very wide and interesting considerations on this Amendment. In the debate on Tuesday I explained, within the context of the Government's policies as a whole, the reason why we believe it is necessary to hold the Border poll, and to hold it as soon as possible. The Amendment before the Committee in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is on the much narrower point as to how the votes should be counted and the results announced.
The purpose of the Bill is to hold a poll to enable the people of Northern Ireland, and the people of Northern Ireland as a whole, to make known their wishes as to whether Northern Ireland, within its present boundaries, should remain part of the United Kingdom or should be joined with the Republic. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government, as I explained on Tuesday, that it would be undesirable to declare the results by individual constituencies or any other areas, and the Secretary of State is not planning to do so. The votes cast throughout the Province will be collected and taken to one or more central points for counting, and for the results to be declared. In our judgment, a declaration of the count by particular areas, whether Stormont constituencies or other areas, would very probably be taken by many people—even though I appreciate that it is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that it should be taken in this way—as an indication that there was a possibility of redrawing the Border; and this, as he said, correctly, would be unacceptable to a large number of people in both communities in Northern Ireland, and would serve only to keep the Border issue alive.
Moreover, most responsible opinion—including, I believe, the Government of the Republic of Ireland—is against any redrawing of the Border, which would serve only to perpetuate a divide which they want to see bridged. I appreciate that the noble Lord. Lord Kilbracken, is not arguing along these lines himself. We believe that it would have that effect: he believes that it would not.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Lord is emphasising the unwisdom of declaring results. Is there any reason why the Government should deprive themselves of the information as to what the disposition of the different views is? Is it necessary to declare? Would it not be reasonable to have the information for the Government, at any rate?
LORD WINDLESHAM: As I mentioned on Tuesday, it is so difficult to understand, in the calm of this House, the intensity of feeling in Ulster on this issue. This is an article of faith to the majority community, that there would be a vote over Northern Ireland as a whole in which the people of Northern Ireland as a whole could vote on the Border, and nothing else. That pledge was given by the Prime Minister and was accepted by Parliament in March as part of the package of direct rule. It has been repeated on a whole number of occasions by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and if he went back on that now, which he does not intend to do, the chances of him getting the confidence of the Protestant majority at a time when we depend on getting enough confidence to reach a settlement would be greatly negated. It is for that reason that we do not think it would be right to accept this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, which I listened to with interest. I hardly expected that he would accept my suggestion. It may indeed be helpful to him in getting the confidence of the majority to keep the voting conditions as they are. I myself should have thought that it would help to gain the confidence of the minority, which is not without importance, if he changed the question along the lines I have suggested. But having been given this opportunity to ventilate this matter and having heard what noble Lords have said, I have no intention to press the Amendment to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.10 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("questions") and insert ("question")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are paving Amendments for Amendment No. 4. I hope that these three Amendments may be considered together. The effect of these Amendments would be to substitute a new, much longer Schedule for the existing Schedule which gives the form of the ballot paper on which the men and women of the Six Counties are going to vote at this poll, whenever it takes place. I know that we have an important debate to come and I do not want to keep distinguished noble Lords waiting, but I feel that this is an extremely important matter. I have already said at Second Reading that I regard this poll as being disastrous, largely because it is going to result in the complete polarisation of the people of Northern Ireland; it is going to drive the nationalists on the one hand, the loyalists on the other hand and those at present in the middle to the two extremes, because they are being presented with this completely stark, unqualified two-part question: Are you going to stay as part of the United Kingdom or are you going to join the Republic of Ireland? There are various ways in which the question could be modified so that it does not present such a stark alternative. It is those stark alternatives which I fear are going to lead to violence and resentment throughout the Six Counties.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell has already referred to the inadequacy and unsuitability of the questions as they exist at present. There are many people who will not feel inclined to reply "Yes" to either of them. The wild men on the extreme Protestant side who want a form of U.D.I. in the Six Counties cannot say that they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom, and certainly they do not want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland. All they can do is to hand in a blank ballot paper. In order to modify it to some extent it might be possible to put instead a question of this sort: Do you want Northern Ireland to be united with the Repubilc of Ireland at some future date under conditions to be decided by the whole Irish people? Answer "Yes" or "No". At this point I want to mention that it seems to me to be wrong to have two questions, with the voter having to choose to which of those

427
questions he can answer "Yes". That is not the normal, way in which a referendum or poll is taken. Normally, there is one question put to the voter; and he answers "Yes" or "No". That is the way I should like to see it here.
My own Amendment (which is probably worded wrongly) brings out certain points of principle which I hope your Lordships will consider. To begin with, it is far longer; but I do not think that that matters. I hold in my hand my polling card for the referendum which is taking place at this moment in the Republic of Ireland and on which I would be voting to-day if I were not speaking here. The most important question is being put to the people of the Republic is whether in Article 44 of the Constitution, Sections 2 and 3 should be deleted. In that case the question has to be written in two languages, English on the left and Irish on the right; and it takes up the whole of one page. It starts by telling you what Article 44 of the Constitution, Sections 2 and 3, says at present and how Article 44 will read if those sections are deleted. It then says that if you approve of the proposal, et cetera, mark "X" opposite the word "Yes" which is printed on the paper. The question occupies two complete pages of the yellow polling card.
My question is not as long as that, but in it I am trying to make it possible for people to see this issue in terms other than black and white; that there are various alternatives; that we are trying to find out which is the best one; and that the solution lies somewhere in the middle. I begin by a statement which I am sure the Minister cannot object to:
"The Government has pledged that no change shall be made in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland"—
and these were the words used by the then Mr. Attlee in the original undertaking given to the North—
"unless this has been shown to be the desire of the majority of its citizens."
Then I state:
"One way in which its Constitutional status could be changed"
Of course, there are many others
"is through political union with the Republic of Ireland."
I emphasise that governing such a union there will be conditions that we do not know about at present, and that these will be decided by the "whole Irish people".
Your Lordships will note that I have inserted the hypothesis,
"if the people of the Republic of Ireland agreed"
because I feel that whatever the Republic of Ireland may say in Article 2 of the Constitution claiming jurisdiction over the whole island of Ireland, it is still a little presumptuous to have a poll in the North in which one of the alternatives is political union with the Republic of Ireland. There has been no discussion, so far as is known, with the Republic of Ireland as to what they may think about this proposal. I should not like to presume that much; and so I put in the hypothesis that the conditions would be decided by the whole Irish people so long as the people of the Republic of Ireland agreed that such a course be taken.
Then in paragraph 4 of my Amendment I put forward some of the alternative ways in which this political union might take place. There may be many others. But I say that it is the whole Irish people who would decide on these details once it had been established that the majority of the people wanted such a union. The whole Irish people would decide whether the new State should be part of the United Kingdom. I do not know whether there is any reason why a 32-county Republic should not be part of the United Kingdom. I do not think it is very likely; but I do not know of any constitutional reason why it should not be if the majority of the people desire it.
They would decide whether the new State would be inside or outside the Commonwealth. That is a very much more serious suggestion. Of course, the Six Counties are already part of the United Kingdom, even more than being in the Commonwealth; but this is the kind of concession that might be given if it were going to lead to the possibility of reunification. In a month's time the Republic of Ireland is going to be in the E.E.C. The Republic of Ireland has always enjoyed enormous economic preferences in this country as though she were a member of the Commonwealth.
When bargaining is going on, each side must give a little, to try to find the middle course. I am not a member of any political Party other than the Labour Party in this country, but I should have thought that if reunification were on the cards, one of the easiest things to agree would be that this State might be inside the Commonwealth, if that is what the majority of the people wanted.
Then I go on to point out that it does not necessarily mean a sudden transfer to a single State capital in Dublin with complete and absolute powers, but that there are all kinds of halfway houses that might be inhabited. I point out that the new State might have a single seat of government which might be in Dublin or in Belfast. It might have regional governments in both existing capitals, with a National Government in one of them, or elsewhere. This is a federal solution of the kind which I have often thought might be the most promising; regional government in Belfast and Dublin, with a Federal Government somewhere on the Border, on the lines of Canberra in Australia or the District of Columbia in the United States of America.
Then there would be:
"such other legal and constitutional changes as might be found desirable."
I have already drawn attention in my Second Reading speech to the kind of things in the Irish Republic constitutional law which the North might find disturbing and things in the North which the Republic might find disturbing. Finally, having shown that there are different possibilities, I am able to put the matter simply, as a question:
"Do you approve of seeking such an eventual union?"
Union would not be immediate, but would occur at some time whenever it became possible.
"Put an X in the box marked, 'Yes' or 'No' as appropriate."
Nothing in the world would surprise me more than if my Amendment were accepted. But I think that points of principle have been raised which have been worth debating in this Committee and I beg to move the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I cannot agree with the
430
noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken—I shall speak only for about three minutes. The Amendment is not compatible with the times in which we live. I agree with the noble Lord's sentiments with regard to the future advantages of having two regional governments which may eventually come together, and all that. What could be approved—of course this would be entirely up to Mr. Lynch—supposing we had a plebiscite in Northern Ireland and it was found that a large majority of the people wished to stay in the United Kingdom, would be a plebiscite in the South of Ireland, the question being, "Do you want to have the North of Ireland in the Republic of Ireland against the wishes of the North of Ireland?" I think that my noble friend Lord Dunleath suggested something like that the other day. Such a plebiscite would be possible: it is up to Mr. Lynch. But in the times in which we are living I do not think that Lord Kilbracken's Amendment is practicable.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think that I should go over too much of the same ground in replying to this Amendment. I appreciate the careful thought which the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, has given to drafting this alternative schedule. I had an opportunity to talk with the noble Lord at length earlier in the week, and I think that I now understand better what is in his mind; and perhaps he understands better what is in the mind of the Government. I cannot say that we reached agreement because the noble Lord's outlook is necessarily different from our own. All I can say is that I can well understand, from his position, living in the Republic of Ireland and with his links with the nationalist community, that he is aware of that strain of thought in Irish politics which is a very strong one and has existed for many centuries. We are aware of it, too. When we debate the next item of business, the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order we shall be discussing the major source of grievance on the minority side and how we felt that we had to get over that hurdle.
As I explained on Tuesday, in the speech I made in opening the debate then, this is a matter which concerns the confidence of the majority community.

431
In Stormont Castle, where the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been for the last eight months, he or his Ministerial colleagues meet members of the majority and minority communities, actively engaged in pursuing some political objective or other, every day. In that time we have come to form a judgment. My right honourable friend has said repeatedly in the House of Commons that he does not claim that his judgment is any better than that of anybody else. But he has to make up his mind. He has been given the responsibility of trying to help to resolve this appalling conflict, and he has concluded that two of the essential prerequisites are, on the minority side to take account of internment, and on the majority side to have this plebiscite on the Border in the simple clear-cut way in which it has been presented to Parliament. The House of Commons accepted that argument and I hope that your Lordships' Committee also will accept it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and, following his words, I should like to express my appreciation not only for everything that he and Mr. Whitelaw have done, always, I know, with great sincerity, but also for the time the Minister was able to give me in the discussion that we had earlier and the correspondence we had. There was one little surprise to which I would allude and which was perhaps unexpected. I think we understand one another: we are trying to find solutions in different ways. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is on the Government side of the House and I am on this side; he is a Catholic and I am a Protestant—or at least mine has been a Protestant family since the time of Cromwell. I do not intend to press the Amendment, and with those remarks I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.
6.28 p.m.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution):
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to prolong the proceedings, but I think it ought once again to be on record that many of us do not like this Bill and we look forward to the package. Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who has the very difficult task of trying to balance things out and may not succeed in pleasing everybody—and sometimes may not please anybody—that the rest of the package proposals will also be of the very greatest importance to the minority and, one hopes, acceptable to the majority as well. We shall undoubtedly need to debate Northern Ireland again at no very distant date. Passing this Bill so quickly through these stages is not due to any lack of appreciation of the importance of the subject on the part of your Lordships' House. I think that we ought to regard this in the sense of a continuing dialogue.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, I do not want to intervene for more than a moment, and I do so with some reluctance. I have already expressed my deep-felt opposition to the Bill. I feel that it is highly divisive and, above all, is liable to cause increased violence in the North. For that reason, I very much regret that I cannot accept that the Third Reading should go through "on the nod", and I am going to oppose it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said. I can assure him that there will be many further opportunities of debating Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has made clear that this is a continuing flow of policy. There will be, as early as possible in the New Year, a White Paper, and the Temporary Provisions Act will run out at Easter. Northern Ireland is bound to occupy a good deal of time in our calendar next year.
I do not claim that the Bill before us will by itself solve the problems of Northern Ireland, but I do claim that it can contribute towards a solution by offering reassurance, and it should help

433
to clarify minds. Some people will welcome it as an opportunity to reaffirm their wish that Ulster should remain part of the United Kingdom; others may want to indicate that it should become part of the Republic of Ireland. But either way, democratic expression of this kind is deserving of respect and attention. Moreover, the Bill honours a specific undertaking by the British Government. It is therefore important in itself, and as part of the process of reconciliation, which means working by persuasion and assurance rather than by continued confrontation.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DETENTION OF TERRORISTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
6.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. In introducing this Order I am conscious that its provisions may cause unease in the minds of some noble Lords, in particular those who have been concerned with the administration of justice and those who have devoted much of their time to upholding personal liberty. It is particularly important, therefore, that I should explain the circumstances that have given rise to this Order. All along there has been in our mind the necessity to strike a balance between the right of the individual citizen to his liberty and the need to take steps to safeguard the lives and homes of people in Northern Ireland, for whose protection we have a responsibility.
When this Government took over in Northern Ireland earlier this year the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland assumed the powers that had been vested in Northern Ireland Ministers under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 and its Regulations. Among the powers were those under Regulations 11 and 12 which permitted detention and internment of persons by the Executive. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland decided not to exer-
434
cise the power of internment. Indeed, he was able to release very substantial numbers of internees—something in excess of 700 people. He recognised, however, that the circumstances of Northern Ireland were such that the normal processes of law were inadequate—I shall say more on this later. My right honourable friend therefore reluctantly made use of—and made sparing use of—the power then conferred by Regulation 11 of the Special Powers Act to detain persons suspected of being terrorists. At the same time, we recognised the emotiveness of this issue, a primary source of grievance on the minority side, and were anxious to find a system that could be put in its place.
After much consideration the Government decided that on such a crucial matter expert and objective advice should be sought. Consequently, a Commission was set up, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, to consider what arrangements for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland could be made in order to deal more effectively with terrorist organisations. Since the Commission needed time to investigate and report, the Government were faced with the alternatives either of continuing to operate the provisions of the Special Powers Act until the Commission had reported and any recommendations could be embodied in law or to devise some interim measure which would remove some of the most objectionable features of the regulations made under the Special Powers Act. As I explained on Tuesday, we chose the latter course of action. The Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 was made by Her Majesty the Queen in Council on November 1, and came into effect on November 7.
The Commissioners appointed under the Order, of whom there are three, each with judicial experience, began hearings on November 10. All cases of men already interned or detained under Regulations 11 or 12 of the Special Powers legislation, toalling 242 persons in all, were referred to the Commissioners by the Secretary of State, in addition to any new cases arising since that date. In the last month—that is, from November 7 until yesterday, December 6–43 interim custody orders have been signed, and the Commissioners have heard a total of 104

435
cases. This has resulted in 37 person being released, and 67 persons being detained, with 13 cases adjourned for further hearing. It has therefore been possible in Article 12 of the Order before your Lordships this evening to revoke those parts of the Special Powers Acts which provide for detention and internment. Internment, as such, is now a thing of the past—and this cannot be said too often or too loudly.
My Lords, the remainder of the Order provides a system in which a case against an alleged terrorist is heard by an independent Commissioner whose decision, subject to appeal, is final. This is a far cry from internment by the Executive. It may nevertheless be asked: why is a procedure for detention needed at all? There is, first of all, the problem of intimidation of witnesses. I do not think I need describe specific instances to indicate the prevailing climate of fear. There have been cases when witnesses have been killed, and others when they have been beaten up. Is it really reasonable to expect a person who witnesses an act of terrorism to go to the police; to make a statement; to give evidence before the accused in a court of law, knowing that by so doing there is a risk that he might be murdered or that his wife or children might be harmed; or, if he is lucky enough to escape personal injuries, that he might suffer no more damage than his home being attacked? Nor can evidence be given in open court without prejudicing the sources of information, including intelligence services, informers, or any other source from which information may come.
Then, my Lords, there is the problem of dealing with those who organise terrorism, those who plan or direct operations but who do not themselves engage in terrorist acts—in firing the shots or in planting the bomb. In theory, they might be charged with conspiracy or membership of illegal organisations, but noble Lords will know the difficulty of obtaining convictions for such charges. The Order is drafted so that hearings before the Commissioners are in private, that the respondent and his counsel may be excluded during parts of the proceedings, that the normal rules of evidence need not be applied, and that hearings shall be before a Commissioner who has held judicial office or is a bar-
436
rister, advocate or solicitor of at least ten years' standing in the United Kingdom. I must emphasise that the primary aim of the appropriate authorities is, wherever possible, to bring alleged terrorists before the courts.
If there are strong grounds for believing a person to have been implicated in terrorism, but the nature of the evidence is such that, for reasons that I gave earlier, it cannot be adduced in a normal court of law, an application may be made to the Secretary of State under Article 4 for an interim custody order. If granted, this will permit a person to be detained for a maximum of 28 days, although provision is made under Article 9 for the Secretary of State to release him earlier. If a person is referred to a Commissioner, the person must be so notified in writing, and he may continue to be detained until a Commissioner has determined his case. In addition, Part III of the Schedule requires a respondent to be served, not less than three days before the hearing, with a statement in writing as to the nature of the terrorist activities which are to be the subject of the hearing. This is another substantial improvement on the previous system, as is his right to be represented by counsel or a solicitor.
Article 5 of the Order sets out the matters on which the Commissioners have to satisfy themselves. Noble Lords may notice that there are two counts: first that the person has been concerned in the commission or attempted commission of any act of terrorism or the direction, organisation or training of persons for the purpose of terrorism; and, second, that his detention is necessary for the protection of public. Both of these conditions must be satisfied. In this way it can be said that the Commissioners do not exercise a punitive role but exercise a preventive role.
At this stage it may be convenient to say a few words about the definition in the Order of terrorism. Your Lordships' Special Orders Committee pointed out that this is a term new to the Statute Book. It is important that the definition should be wide enough to cover all acts of terrorism with which we are so familiar in Northern Ireland, yet not so wide as to be unacceptable in a Statute. Political ends have been included as an ingredient, but we have also thought it necessary to

437
add the inclusion of any use of violence for the purpose of putting the public, or any section of the public, in fear. I do not believe that the definition is so wide as to put persons who are not terrorists at risk. There are the further safeguards. The House will accept that it is not likely that my right honorable friend the Secretary of State would make an interim custody order in inappropriate circumstances; nor will there be doubt in the minds of the Commissioners about what is intended by the definition of terrorism in this Order. Paragraph (2) of Article 5 provides that if a Commissioner is satisfied on the two grounds I have already mentioned, he shall make a detention order or shall direct the person's discharge. A Commissioner's decision is final, subject to an appeal by the respondent.
I should also draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the provisions of Part III of the Schedule also contain safeguards for the person whose liberty is at risk. I have mentioned that a person may be represented by counsel or a solicitor. He may also give and adduce evidence and make oral or written representations to the Commissioner. The Commissioner has wide powers to receive evidence; to question any person, including the respondent; to summon witnesses; to require the production of documents and cause inquiries to be made. With these wide powers and sources of information, a Commissioner will have ample opportunities to determine the truth of allegations of terrorism. In Part III of the Schedule there is one other important safeguard for a respondent. If, for any of the reasons given, evidence is heard in the absence of the respondent, the Commissioner is required, so far as the needs of public security and the safety of persons permit, to inform the respondent, or his representative, of the substance of the matters dealt with during that part of the proceedings. A Commissioner is also allowed to order the payment of costs or expenses, including legal costs, to the respondent.
There is, my Lords, a right of appeal. Provision is made for a Detention Appeal Tribunal to consist of three (or a greater uneven number) members who, like the Commissioners, shall have held judicial office or be a barrister, advocate or solicitor of at least ten years' standing
438
in the United Kingdom. We have been most fortunate in that a former Lord Justice of Appeal has agreed to serve as Chairman of this Tribunal. Under Article 6, a person may appeal to the Tribunal within 21 days of the making of the detention order against him. If he does so, a copy of the record of the proceedings before the Commissioners is passed to the Tribunal, and the appellant is entitled to receive a copy, excluding any part of the proceedings that took place in his absence. Provisions for the proceedings of the Tribunal are in line with those in the Commissions; fresh evidence may be permitted with the consent of the Tribunal, and the appellant may be represented by counsel or a solicitor. The Tribunal is a decisive body and, having heard the appeal, may either allow it and direct the discharge of the appellant, or dismiss the appeal.
I shall not describe in detail the other provisions of the Order, but I shall be glad to deal with any points which may arise in debate. This measure is not one that I take any particular pleasure in presenting to your Lordships. But most people believe that the special circumstances in Northern Ireland call for some special measures. As I have said, this system replaces internment by the Executive in the form in which it has been known in Northern Ireland for nearly half a century. The Order substitutes independent legally qualified persons to assess allegations of terrorism in place of the Executive, and gives those persons the necessary powers to enable them to reach the truth. This is a real advance.
My Lords, there is a temptation to think that any departure from established judicial principles must be a retrograde step. But terrorists in Northern Ireland, by using fear and brutality, torture and murder, have created conditions in which the courts cannot always operate effectively. We cannot, if we have any compassion or any sense of responsibility for the people of Northern Ireland, allow justice to be left on one side and countless innocent people put in physical danger or fear. The purpose of this Order is to get away from internment, which it does; to provide an alternative procedure where the courts cannot meet an acknowledged threat to society; and to do so in a way which permits the maximum possible safeguards to individual liberty. It

439
is because I believe that the Order represents a step forward and, consequently, a step towards an eventual settlement in Northern Ireland, that I ask your Lordships—and with some confidence—to approve it this evening. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
6.50 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for permitting me to interrupt at this stage in the debate. I have spent most of the past seven weeks examining the nature and consequences of terrorist crime in Northern Ireland. I have nevertheless hesitated whether or not to intervene at all. But the Commission of which I had the honour to be Chairman has now presented its unanimous Report to the Secretary of State. Before it is published, it would be quite improper for me to anticipate its findings; and anything that I say to-day is based upon my personal experiences, not all of which could be shared by my colleagues on the Commission. It is said on my personal responsibility alone. It is not my intention to advance any arguments for or against this Order, but I thought it might be helpful for a consideration of its merits if I were to explain how, as it appears to me as a lawyer, the procedures contemplated by the Order differ in legal character from the former procedures under Regulations 11 and 12 which it replaces, and how they would operate in practice in the present pattern of terrorist violence in Northern Ireland.
To a layman, as to a lawyer too, it is easy to over-simplify; to suppose that in an emergency which threatens the life of the nation there are only two procedures for dealing with politically motivated crime: on the one hand, there is what is commonly thought of as internment, the imprisonment by arbitrary order of the Executive of those whom the police suspect of being a danger to the State; on the other hand, there is trial and sentence by a regular court of criminal justice applying ordinary rules of evidence and procedure to those who are proved actually to have committed a specific criminal offence. But these are two extremes. Between them there lies
440
a whole gradation of procedures of which it is no more true to say, "This is internment under another name" than it is to say, "This is trial under another name".
May I try briefly to list what seem to me as a lawyer to be the essential characteristics of trial by a regular court of criminal law, and to examine to what extent they were absent in the old Regulations 11 and 12 and are present in the new Order. First: in a trial the accused must be proved to have done something which was a criminal offence when lie did it. This was not necessary under the former Regulations. Suspicion that he might be about to do any act prejudicial to the preservation of the peace or to the maintenance of order was enough. It is necessary under the new Order, since the detention order can only he made if the Commissioner or the Detention Appeal Tribunal is satisfied that the accused has been concerned in the use, or attempted use, of violence for political ends or in the direction, organisation or training of other persons for the purpose of so using violence. Any act which falls within this description is a well-established offence in criminal law, quite apart from any state of emergency.
Second: in a trial the guilt of the accused must be proved to the satisfaction of an impartial person or a jury who are independent of the Executive. This was not the case under the former Regulations, though it is right to say that there was an Advisory Committee to hear applications by internees for their release. It was under the chairmanship of Judge Brown, a county court judge of Northern Ireland whose reputation for integrity and sturdy common sense is quite outstanding. I should do less than justice to the work of his Committee if I did not put on record my conviction that in practice it did a great deal to mitigate the arbitrary character of the Regulations. In contrast, the new Order places the responsibility of deciding whether the guilt of the accused is proved on a Commissioner, on a Detention Appeal Tribunal, the composition of which my noble friend Lord Windlesham has stated. I would also pay tribute to some of those who have been appointed as Commissioners and whose great experience in trying criminal cases is something which it is very valuable to have.

441
Third: in a trial the appropriate sentence is determined by the judge. This was not the case under the former Regulations. Under the new Order it is true the only sentence that can be passed by a Commissioner is one of detention, but it can be passed only if the Commissioner is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of the public, which is itself a stringent test of its appropriateness. Fourth: in a trial the accused is informed in advance of what he is alleged to have done; is entitled to legal representation in the conduct of his defence, and can call evidence in support of it. None of these safeguards was provided for in the former Regulations; all are expressly laid down in the new Order.
Finally, in a trial the guilt of the accused must be proved to the satisfaction of the court by evidence adduced in accordance with the technical rules and procedures familiar in English and Northern Irish criminal courts. The new Order, in contrast, gives to the Commissioners a wide discretion to depart from these rules. Many of the rules which we follow in our criminal courts have no place in the criminal procedure of other European countries. Most European and at least some English lawyers would say that some of them are weighted too heavily in favour of the guilty and are not necessary to protect the innocent; but that is a general question which this House will no doubt debate when the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee on the law of evidence is considered. I express no view about it now, but this House ought, I think, to realise the practical impossibility of applying some of those rules in terrorist crime in Northern Ireland to-day.
One of those rules—the rule against hearsay—requires that the prosecution should prove the criminal acts of the accused by direct oral testimony in open court of witnesses who may speak only of what they observed themselves, not what was told about it to them by others; and they can be cross-examined widely on behalf of the accused. This is not practicable unless those who would be able to give this kind of evidence can be sure that to do so would not expose themselves or their families to risk of death or injury, or their homes to risk of destruction.
442
My Lords, let me, as dispassionately as I can, give one example of the extent to which this can be guaranteed today in Northern Ireland. A bus was hijacked by three terrorists. The driver was able to identify them. Two days before he was due to give evidence at their trial two hooded men called at his house. The door was opened by his little daughter. They asked her "Where is your Da?" She called him. He came downstairs. As he came down they shot him dead in front of the little girl, who was wounded. In common humanity one has to use some method of proving guilt which does not risk disclosing to any member of the terrorist organisation the identity of those who provide the security authorities with information about terrorist crimes.
What this necessarily means is that the Commissioners must rely upon reports and information received from sources the identity of which cannot be disclosed to the accused or his lawyer, or indeed to the Commissioners themselves; and secondly, that there must be excluded from those reports any detailed information from which the accused might be able to guess at the source. This would not prevent the Commissioners from putting questions to the police officers by whom the reports were obtained, directed to ascertaining the reliability of the source, short of disclosing its identity, although such questions might sometimes have to be put in the absence of the accused.
I made it my business to study the kind of material which is available to the Commissioners in the form in which it is presented to them. My position as chairman of the Permanent Security Commission for the United Kingdom enabled me also to inquire, as the Commissioners cannot, into the actual identity of the individual source of each report. The principal offence for which detention orders are sought is the organising, directing and training of members of terrorist organisations in the use of violence. The identity and the functions of the officers responsible for these activities in each of the battalions and companies in which the I.R.A. is organised are widely known. In each of the cases that I examined, the information that a particular person was an explosives

443
officer, training officer, quartermaster or, it may be, of a particular company, came from a number of separate sources. In one case it came from as many as 16, and it was possible to check that these sources were independent of one another and did not derive from a single common source. That check could, I think, adequately be made by putting questions which could be answered without disclosing the actual identity of any of the several sources.
In the great majority of cases the cumulative probative value of this material can, I believe, carry as much conviction of the guilt of the accused as that which I was accustomed to have after hearing the direct oral evidence given in open court on a charge on which a jury found a defendant guilty. I would not suggest that it can always be so great a safeguard against mistaken convictions as a trial in open court. Certainly since the hearing has to be in private and part of it perhaps in the absence of the accused himself, it can never appear to be so. But I am satisfied that a procedure of this kind can be worked in practice so as to make the risk of unjust detention very small indeed; and against this risk there has to be balanced the risk to the lives of witnesses who would be involved in public trial by ordinary procedure of some terrorist crimes in courts of criminal law.
7.6 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I speak as one who in general supports the policy of the present Government in relation to Northern Ireland. I do not trouble your Lordships' House very much in these days, but I thought that as I am the only surviving Member of Parliament who was a member of the Committee of Privy Counsellors who had to inquire into matters in Northern Ireland a little time ago and had to say that what was being done there was contrary to the law of England and contrary to the law of Northern Ireland and must be stopped, I should perhaps say something this evening.
In the first place, I think one cannot approach legislation of this kind, whether it is primary legislation or subordinate legislation, without considering
444
those aspects of human rights which are law. Whether the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is part of the customary law of nations or not, we are, of course, bound by the Geneva Conventions and by the European Convention on Human Rights, but I think we should be well advised to pay heed in addition to the general temper of human rights which is happily, I think, increasing in the world, particularly in the developed countries. Last week saw the first conference called by the new British Institute of Human Rights whose constitution is in itself an advantage to this country and of whom I have no doubt we shall hear a good deal in time to come. This week, on Monday and Tuesday and last night, there were meetings in this building organised by the United Nations Association of those of informed opinion on three human rights subjects—immigration, the dependent territories and the status of women.
One of the things I think we must recognise is that all those concerned with human rights are no longer prepared to accept the old doctrine, very useful to Governments, that it does not matter how a Government treats its own citizens because it is a domestic matter which other countries and other people are not entitled to criticise. On Monday, Amnesty is starting a year's campaign against the increasing organised use of torture by Governments, both in the East and in the West, of their prisoners, particularly, though not exclusively, prisoners on religious or political grounds. This is an example of a case in which it is quite impossible for any country rightly to say, "This is of purely domestic concern".
Certainly a couple of years ago the Christian Churches held a consultation representative of all the Christian Churches, and among their conclusions was this:
"There is today a growing concern with the frequency with which some authorities resort to the torture or inhuman treatment of political opponents or prisoners held by them. There exists at the present time in certain regions of the world, regimes using systematic methods of torture carried out in the most refined way. Torture itself becomes contagious. The expediency of the moment should never silence the voice of the Church authorities when condemnation of inhuman treatment is called for."

445
In the same year at the World Conference on Religion and Peace, which was a conference representative of all the world's religions, they said:
"The torture and illtreatment of prisoners which is carried out with the authority of some Governments constitute not only a crime against humanity but also a crime against the moral law."
It is bearing in mind the provisions of human rights that I approach this Order to-night. One thing which it expressly covers is how prisoners who have not been convicted of any offence are to be treated. The first observation I must make is that these regulations are, of course, an immense improvement on the existing situation, from the point of view of human rights. I need not go into detail about that, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has made it clear how great an improvement they are. We have, in effect, returned to the rule of law. I am particularly glad to note that so far as the position of prisoners is concerned, whether detained for the first 28 days or thereafter, their conditions are to be the equivalent of the condition of prisoners on remand. My Lords, that being so, I do not propose to take up your Lordships' time further—although there are points of detail—because an Order of this kind cannot be amended.
There is just one point to which I would refer. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said on Tuesday:
"Certainly this is intended as an interim measure until the basic problem can be considered in the light of the Diplock Commission's Report when that is received."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5/12/72, col. 237.]
Both as to that and as to any reconsideration of the details of this Order, there is one thing which disappoints me, and that is this. In the type of situation that we have in Northern Ireland, as in other emergency conditions, the view has been expressed by the International Commission of Jurists—of which I must make it plain that I am both a member and on their executive committee—that Governments may be well advised to allow on an emergency court or tribunal of some outside representation. They have specifically said this about Northern Ireland; they have given the same advice to the Government of Bangladesh in relation to war crime trials which they are contemplating and have urged them not to repeat Nuremburg in simply having a trial of the vanquished by the victors.
446
I was glad to notice that on Tuesday both the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and my noble friend Lord Shackleton, made complimentary references to the article or thesis by Professor Twining and Professor Palley and other members of Queen's University, Belfast. On page 26 of that document, dealing with the constitution of emergency courts, the learned authors said:
"This is clearly dependent on the wider issue of the control of security of law and order, but insofar as Northern Ireland is coscerned there would be clear advantages in ensuring the impartiality of any emergency court by the appointment of an external presiding judge, whether from Britain, Europe, or the Commonwealth, and in providing that all cases should be heard by a Bench of at least two judges or magistrates."
I do not know—perhaps the noble Lord can tell us—what number of judges it is proposed to have. For obvious reasons, I do not think that a Bench of two judges is ever very satisfactory; one would rather hope that there might be three. But if we are to have emergency courts and when the Government have time to review the existing Order, perhaps they will take this point into account.
The Order provides that all the Commissioners and all the members of any review tribunal must be United Kingdom lawyers. I believe that it would increase our repute both with the European Commission of Human Rights, and possibly too in America, if it were otherwise. I am not saying that in every tribunal the Commissioners should always have some external judge there at all, but if that limitation were removed, it would still be open to the Secretary of State to have nobody but United Kingdom lawyers. But why bind himself in advance? In the Commonwealth we have some judges not only of high standing in the Commonwealth itself but internationally well regarded. If one of them was available, I should have thought that it might be a good thing to have him as a member of an emergency court and possibly even of a tribunal review. I hope, therefore, that the Government will reconsider this point. My Lords, subject to those points—and properly concerned as I am for human rights—in the conditions which exist in Northern Ireland, apart from matters of detail, I see no objection to this Order.
7.17 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, in so far as this Order enables the Government to depart from the policy of internment, which has been the most serious mistake they have ever made and which in particular has prevented any conversation between them and the S.D.L.P., this Order represents some small progress forward and to that extent is to be welcomed. It is replacing internment and I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us now what is going to happen to those who are still interned under the previous regulations. I assume that in every case either they will be released or interim custody orders will have to be issued and the procedure set forth in this Order will have to be followed.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner was able to say that he thought we had in effect returned to the rule of law. It is, of course, a step in that direction, but I wonder whether that view is not something of an exaggeration. There are certain aspects of the Order which still cause me very great apprehension. In the first place, it is clear that a suspect may be detained for 28 days without his case even being referred to a Commissioner. It cannot be said that this is a return to the rule of law because normally in any other part of the United Kingdom a person must be charged as soon as he is apprehended. Under this Order he can be detained, as I say, for a month without even being told anything about his alleged offence. If during those 28 days his case is referred to a Commissioner, the adjudication may be delayed for an indefinite period. It is nowhere laid down in the Order that adjudication must take place within a certain set period of time. Under ordinary conditions of law there may be delays, but surely it is particularly important when no particular charge has been laid that the case should be heard within a set time. Then again, if a man is found guilty, or is found by the Commissioner to be a suspect and appeals, the hearing of his appeal may also be delayed indefinitely. So the person may have to wait an indeterminable length of time before he gets even the diminished justice that he is given under this Order—diminished, that is, as compared with the ordinary procedure, though it is greater
448
justice than he has been getting up until now.
What gives me greater cause for concern is the provision in paragraph 14 of the Schedule which allows the Commissioner to receive evidence,
"notwithstanding that such evidence would be inadmissible in a court of law."
I listened as carefully as I could to the very elaborate exposition made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and he was comparing in great detail the differences between this procedure and the normal legal procedure. But the only point I thought he raised on this was that under this Order hearsay evidence would be admissible, and he thought that was justified. I have always accepted, much against my will, that in the present situation in Northern Ireland it may be necessary to permit certain legal procedures because of the dangers of intimidation, and for no other reason. I regret it, but I can see that the Government feel that to be necessary, and therefore I accept it. But I do not see any reason why evidence, that would otherwise be inadmissible, should be permitted unless it is in some way connected with intimidation; and I do not see why hearsay evidence, for instance, should be permitted in these courts. I am wondering—I have mentioned it in advance to the Minister—what other forms of otherwise inadmissible evidence it is intended to permit in these courts.
I have only one other small point, which would normally be a Committee point, but we shall not be having a Committee and we cannot move Amendments. It seems to me that the Order has a flaw which may be an embarrassment to the Government. Under paragraph (12) of the Schedule a respondent can be removed from the proceedings before a Commissioner owing to his disorderly conduct but he cannot be removed for disorderly conduct when his case goes up to appeal. Under Part IV (paragraph 25) only paragraphs 14 and 19 "with any necessary modifications" have any effect in relation to appeals. Therefore, I very much hope that none of the alleged terrorists who comes up before the appeal court misbehaves himself, because there is no way of removing him. That is a minor point compared with the principles involved. I hope the noble Lord will be able to

449
reassure me on the points that do worry me. If he cannot, I am afraid I must express my opposition to the Order.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I remember, when it was originally decided that internment had become necessary, that the whole idea was so repugnant to many of us that we felt very unhappy about it. Most of us recognised that there could be a situation where the defence of law and order might be in such danger that such a measure might be necessary. It was very difficult for a layman to decide whether the conditions that then existed were such as to make is absolutely necessary or not, but we gave the benefit of the doubt to the Government. Even now, with hindsight, it is very difficult for a layman to judge. What internment inevitably did was to provide a new grievance which was only too easy to exploit. We must all rejoice that now internment by decision of the Executive alone is to be a thing of the past. I think we are all extremely interested in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, had to say to us just now, and also what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said to us. It seems to me that the new arrangements have been devised in a spirit of great pragmatic good sense, and personally I should like to congratulate the Government on the Order they have brought before us this evening.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, in the light of the full and careful speeches we have had, there is really little for me to say. I have never concealed my objection to internment. My objection has been, if anything, more from the practical point of view of the disastrous political consequences, which I must admit I did foresee, although once internment was introduced I knew we could not get rid of it easily. I believe that this is perhaps the most crucially serious mistake that has been made. Therefore I am bound to welcome this Order, and I can welcome it a little more warmly than my noble friend Lord Kilbracken did, although I shall be exceedingly interested to hear the answers of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to some of his questions. As I see it, the problem with regard to removing the disorderly appellant does not arise, because, if I am correct, an appellant is in attendance
450
before the tribunal only when the tribunal call for his attendance. Perhaps we shall get an answer to that question.
Bearing in mind that this is a careful set of proposals and that it represents a real improvement, I certainly should not wish to oppose this Order or to recommend any of my noble friends to oppose it. I am fortified in my view not only by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, but especially by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, whose standing in the matter of human rights is as high as that of anybody in your Lordships' House or indeed in this country. The fact that he is prepared to welcome this Order seems to me to indicate that one could almost say that that is good enough for all of us, because he, after all, did stand up for the rule of law very strikingly when the question of interrogation methods came forward, and it was his Minority Report which the Government, wisely, accepted.
I can see certain possible difficulties, and in particular it would be useful if the Government could give an indication of how speedily this procedure will operate. We know that delays occur in the ordinary courts and that people may be locked up on remand for months; we have had one recent case to this effect. As I understand it, all the present internees are automatically in the position of someone with regard to whom it is deemed that there is already an interim custody order. It would be interesting to know how soon some of these cases will come for adjudication by the Commissioner. A great deal will depend on how speedily the new procedure is worked. It will be absolutely disastrous if there are delays which give rise to a feeling that this is just the old internment under a new name. I happen to believe that it is a great thing that at last the Regulations mentioned in paragraph 12 of the Special Powers Regulations are hereby revoked. I think we should not fail to emphasise that this Order is in fact a revocation of the internment provisions of the old Special Powers Regulations.
I am sure the House will echo the tributes to Judge Brown, and indeed, to all those who are carrying out the enforcement of law in Northern Ireland. I would just leave one further point with

451
the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. This Order is already in force, and has been for a considerable number of days. In fact I assume that interim custody orders are in force against everyone who was already in custody or in internment, and that all the cases of those in internment must already have been referred to a Commissioner, even if the Commissioner has not inquired into the case. But if in the light of this discussion and experience there are further improvements that can be made, I hope that the noble Lord will not hesitate to come to Parliament with an amending Order. I would urge particularly that the Government should give careful consideration to what would be a very small amending Order to make provision for what my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner asked for in the matter of perhaps a Commonwealth judge, or some judge from abroad. It is this sort of act that is of such importance—of much greater importance than is sometimes apparent to those who are desperately coping with the situation, doing what they know to be right, but sometimes missing the important presentational angles.
I did not know that the Diplock Report had yet been announced, and it was unusual, if enjoyable, to have it announced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. It would be interesting to know how quickly the Government can proceed on this, because it is of the greatest importance—and we stressed this in our debate the other day—that we should move into a position which is fully consistent with the law (I am not saying that this is inconsistent), and with the sort of provisions that are proposed in the Fabian pamphlet, to which tribute has been paid, and incorporated as a regular part of the law of the land. Any indication that the noble Lord can give with regard to that will be welcome.
7.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and for the reception that has been given to this Order. We have heard two notable speeches, if I may say so, from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. In the light of the special study that the noble
452
and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has given to this subject in recent weeks, I suppose that he has greater wisdom in this matter than anybody else in your Lordships' House, and perhaps anyone else outside it.
As the noble and learned Lord said, he submitted his Report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland yesterday. We are most grateful to him for the remarkable speed with which he has considered a problem of great importance, and made recommendations for changes in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. The intention is that the Report shall be published so that this House and another place can have an opportunity to consider the proposals it contains but, as noble Lords will appreciate, it is rather too soon for me to say when publication will take place. It will be as soon as we can arrange it. I take the spirit of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said; this is a matter of considerable public importance and political significance in Northern Ireland, and urgency certainly attaches to it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, put the Order squarely in the context of human rights. He set a fairly stiff standard, and I was wondering how the Order was going to measure up to the yardstick he laid down. He said that he believed the new procedure to be a considerable improvement on the old one, and that in the main he felt that the safeguards contained in the Order were on the right lines.
The noble and learned Lord raised one point of detail in particular. That was the requirement in paragraph 2 of the Schedule to the Order, that a Commissioner should hold or have held judicial office in some part of the United Kingdom, or be a barrister, advocate, or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing. Paragraph 5 applies the same requirements in relation to the appeal tribunal. Clearly, in relation to work of this kind it is essential to employ the services of people with wide experience in a common law justicial context. This is particularly the case where, as here, evidence inadmissable in a court of law may be received.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the authors of the Fabian tract entitled,

453
Emergency Powers; A Fresh Start, which we had an opportunity to study well in advance of publication, made the suggestion, as others have done, that there might be advantage to be gained by drawing in people from overseas, perhaps from the Commonwealth, who have had judicial experience. We have been most fortunate in this respect in being able to secure the services as one of the Commissioners of a member of the Bar in the United Kingdom, but who has served as Director of Public Prosecutions, Solicitor-General and Attorney-General in the Northern Region of Nigeria, and subsequently as a judge of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. I appreciate that an appointment of this sort might not go quite as far as the noble and learned Lord is suggesting, but it helps to broaden the experience of the Commissioners. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, also asked me how many Commissioners there were. At the moment there are three, who sit separately, but there is no fixed number laid down in the Order.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was good enough to give me advance notice of the questions which he raised and I am therefore in a position to reply fairly fully. Before he moved on to ask this series of questions he put one preliminary question which received art answer from his own Front Bench. As the noble, Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, the 242 people who on November 7 (the date on which the Order came into effect) were already interned or detained under Regulations 11 and 12 of the Special Powers Act were referred by the Secretary of State to the Commissioners. So all are now within the procedure set out in the Order. Indeed, something of the order of 100 cases have already been heard by the Commissioners in the four weeks during which the new system has been in operation.
The noble Lord's first question referred to the fact that a person could be detained for 28 days without his case being referred to a Commissioner. It is true that any system of criminal justice must make provision for the interim custody of the accused between arrest and trial. In the case of a criminal charge, this is dealt with by successive applications for the accused to be remanded in custody while the police investigations continue.
454
Under the Order, the problem is dealt with by allowing the Secretary of State to make an interim custody order. The chief constable then has a maximum of 28 days to complete his investigations and decide whether he can prove his case before the Commissioner or not. If he then decides he has the necessary evidence he will refer the case to a Commissioner, and the date for the hearing is then in the hands of the Commissioner. If the chief constable decides that notwithstanding his suspicions he cannot produce the necessary evidence in the trial, he will not refer the case to a Commissioner, and the prisoner will be released in any event not later than 28 days from the making of the interim custody order.
I might add that the interim custody order will usually be made within 72 hours of the person's arrest, and a person cannot be detained in right of his arrest for more than a day or two. I should also say, although this is no part of the Order but an administrative safeguard, that applications for interim custody orders are by no means automatically granted by the Secretary of State. There is a thorough process of scrutiny before he, or anyone on his behalf, decides whether or not to sign one at all.
The second question related to a case being referred to a Commissioner and then possibly being delayed for a protracted period, or for an indefinite period. The noble Lord said that throughout this whole period the man may not know on what grounds he is being detained other than that he was suspected of terrorism. This is not the case. It is not true to say that the adjudication can be delayed indefinitely where a case has been referred to a Commissioner. It has to be referred to a Commissioner or not referred within the period of 28 days. Article 5(1) provides that where a case is referred to a Commissioner, a Commissioner shall inquire into it. If there were any undue delay in complying with this obligation, the High Court could then intervene by mandamus to compel compliance. It is inconceivable that any Commissioner would allow a trial to be delayed without some good reason. In practice, the work of the Commissioners is likely to be at least as expeditious as that of the criminal courts, and no such provision has ever been

455
thought necessary with the ordinary courts of law.
Perhaps I might interject a reply here to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who correctly raised the question of this procedure working swiftly. There is always a period between arrest and trial where proceedings take place in the courts, and such is the volume of business and the burden on the higher courts in Northern Ireland at the moment that in Belfast the average period between arrest and trial on indictment—which covers all the more serious charges, such as explosives, firearms and so on—is five months. The new procedure should be much quicker than that. We hope that there will be no possibility of any period of that sort of time elapsing, and the fact that the Commissioners have in four weeks handled over 100 cases is an indication of the speed at which the new procedure can work.
The noble Lord's third question related, rather in the same way, to the possibility that if a man appeals the hearing might be delayed indefinitely. But the same considerations apply here as in the case of undue delay in adjudication by a Commissioner. Any unwarranted delay would be unlawful and could be stopped by the High Court. The noble Lord's fourth point concerned the question of inadmissible evidence, and I understand that the main category of inadmissible evidence is likely to be hearsay evidence. The rule against hearsay evidence was explained so cogently and fully by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, that I do not think it requires me to read out the explanation that I have here, which does little more than go over the same ground.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, asked whether there is any other form of inadmissible evidence. I understand that the hearsay rule is the most important point, and the noble Lord might like to read in Hansard the report of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, had to say about it. But there are a number of other matters, such
456
as the reception of a copy of a document instead of only the original. The final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, was that a respondent's removal might be directed by a Commissioner on the grounds of his disorderly conduct, but not by the tribunal at times when he is entitled to be present. Paragraph 12(2) of the Schedule is much more emphatic than paragraph 23. It states not that the respondent shall be entitled to be present, but that he shall be present. It is therefore necessary in paragraph 12(2) to qualify this provision to exclude the case of disorderly conduct. By the same token, it does not apply the entitlement to be present for the purpose of being disorderly.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory. who took part in our debate on Tuesday and whose contribution I know the Secretary of State has noted with interest, put his finger on the central political aspect of the change which Parliament is being asked to approve to-day that is, that internment in the form in which it had been, known before had become the central grievance of the minority community. So it was essential, as I explained earlier in the week, to break this particular log-jam if we are to reach a position in which we can hope to obtain sufficient confidence from the minority community to reach a settlement next year. I have covered the main points which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition made in his closing speech. I hope I have not replied too fully, but the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, gave me advance notice of the points which he raised. All of us recognise that we are concerned here with highly delicate issues, such as the powers of the courts and the rules of procedure and evidence which exist to safeguard the interests of the individual and the liberty of the subject. We have to try to strike the right sort of balance. That is what this Order attempts to do, and I am grateful for the reception which it has had in your Lordships' House this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

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

Northern Ireland (Financial Provisions) Act,

Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Act.

WATER AND SEWERAGE SERVICES (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
7.47 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 21, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should explain that this draft Order is a further part of the programme of legislation which it is necessary to carry through for the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland. We have already considered education and libraries, health and personal social services, and a number of other matters which arise out of the recommendations of the Macrory Review Body.
At present, the responsibility for water supply and sewerage services in Northern Ireland rests on 79 local authorities which vary greatly in size. Unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has not seen in recent years any major regrouping of water supply authorities. This fragmentation of responsibility provides little incentive to encourage the build-up of qualified teams of professional and technical staff; the economic use of expensive capital works; the introduction of modern automatic control processes, and the establishment of comprehensive maintenance programmes. It also leads to variations in the cost of services. It is for reasons of this kind that the Macrory Review Body recommended that water supply and sewerage services should become the direct responsibility of the Northern Ireland Ministry of Development.
Article 3 of the Order implements this proposal. It is the Ministry's intention to
458
administer water services on the basis of four Divisions based on the major catchment areas in Northern Ireland. Each Division will be divided into a small number of sub-divisions which will deal with day-to-day matters. There will in future be an office of the new water organisation in nearly every major town in Northern Ireland, and these offices will work closely with the offices of other regional and local services. Although executive responsibility for water and sewerage services will be vested in the Ministry of Development from October 1 next, Article 5 requires the Ministry to consult with the new District Councils, and Article 6 provides for the Ministry to be advised by the Northern Ireland Water Council which will shortly be set up.
The existing law in Northern Ireland with respect to water supply and sewerage services dates back to the middle of the last century. The rest of the Order is, therefore, largely concerned with consolidating and updating the legislation which is necessary to ensure the proper provision of water supply and sewerage services. Parts III to VIII of the Order give the Ministry the necessary powers to acquire land and water rights and to carry out works. They deal with the provision of services to new consumers and new development, and set out the procedures which will govern the making of discharges of trade effluents to sewers. These provisions follow closely on the parallel legislation in Great Britain and pave the way for a considerable improvement in the organisation of water services in Northern Ireland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 21, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I must admit that when I was sitting on the Government Front Bench I found on occasion that I was called upon to explain policies with which I was not very familiar, and I found it a very educational experience. But I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is getting a quite exceptionally broadly based education and will become an expert on many

459
subjects. I am sure that he is helped in this by the excellence of the explanations with which he is provided to give to the House, not only in his speeches but also in these explanatory documents, such as the Proposal for a Draft Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order. It is extremely helpful to those of us who feel that we ought to show at least some interest, and see whether there is some very obvious point to which we should draw attention. Once again, of course, we are confronted with what is virtually a Bill. I do not know how long this process will go on, and I should not wish to claim that there is anything very much that one can do about it. But, as I say. I am impressed by the thoroughness; and, of course, a great deal of this follows very closely on the experience with regard to water legislation in Britain. So I certainly welcome the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINES AND QUARRIES (VALUATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1972
7.50 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON rose to move, That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) (Amendment) Order 1972, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is of a technical nature. It corrects an omission in the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) Order

£ thousands

1968

1969

1970

Gross disbursements of financial aid

Bilateral Grants (including technical assistance)

939

835

1,286

Loans

8,601

10,313

9,332

Total

9,540

11,148

10,618

Outstanding debt on official loans at 30 June 1972

(a) Disbursed and still outstanding

81,655

(b) Arrears of principal and interest

4,883

In accordance with arrangements agreed by the creditor members of the Pakistan Consortium, Britain and Pakistan concluded an agreement on November 30, 1972, whereby payments due on official debt between May 1, 1971, and June 30, 1973 (which include the arrears referred to above) have been rescheduled for re-
460
1971 for the purposes of the coming revaluation for rates. Like the Members of another place, I do not think your Lordships will desire a long explanation. Accordingly, I commend the Order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Mines and Quarries (Valuation) (Amendment) Order 1972, be approved.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I fear I cannot do adequate justice to the eloquence and clarity of the noble Lord. Anything he proposes so winningly to us we accept without any doubt.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AID TO PAKISTAN
  AID TO PAKISTAN
  COMPANIES AND REGISTRATION OF ACCOUNTS
  COMPANIES AND REGISTRATION OF ACCOUNTS
  PROBATION OFFICERS
  PROBATION OFFICERS